Page 45

Support for changing date of Australia Day softens, but remains strong among young people — new research

ANALYSIS: By David Lowe, Deakin University; Andrew Singleton, Deakin University, and Joanna Cruickshank, Deakin University

After many years of heated debate over whether January 26 is an appropriate date to celebrate Australia Day — with some councils and other groups shifting away from it — the tide appears to be turning among some groups.

Some local councils, such as Geelong in Victoria, are reversing recent policy and embracing January 26 as a day to celebrate with nationalistic zeal.

They are likely emboldened by what they perceive as an ideological shift occurring more generally in Australia and around the world.

But what of young people? Are young Australians really becoming more conservative and nationalistic, as some are claiming? For example, the Institute for Public Affairs states that “despite relentless indoctrination taking place at schools and universities”, their recent survey showed a 10 percent increase in the proportion of 18-24 year olds who wanted to celebrate Australia Day.

However, the best evidence suggests that claims of a shift towards conservatism among young people are unsupported.

The statement “we should not celebrate Australia Day on January 26” was featured in the Deakin Contemporary History Survey in 2021, 2023, and 2024.

Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement level. The Deakin survey is a repeated cross-sectional study conducted using the Life in Australia panel, managed by the Social Research Centre. This is a nationally representative online probability panel with more than 2000 respondents for each Deakin survey.

Robust social survey
With its large number of participants, weighting and probability selection, the Life in Australia panel is arguably Australia’s most reliable and robust social survey.

The Deakin Contemporary History Survey consists of several questions about the role of history in contemporary society, hence our interest in whether or how Australians might want to celebrate a national day.

Since 1938, when Aboriginal leaders first declared January 26 a “Day of Mourning”, attitudes to this day have reflected how people in Australia see the nation’s history, particularly about the historical and contemporary dispossession and oppression of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

In 2023, we found support for Australia Day on January 26 declined slightly from 2021, and wondered if a more significant change in community sentiment was afoot.

With the addition of the 2024 data, we find that public opinion is solidifying — less a volatile “culture war” and more a set of established positions. Here is what we found:



This figure shows that agreement (combining “strongly agree” and “agree”) with not celebrating Australia Day on January 26 slightly increased in 2023, but returned to the earlier level a year later.

Likewise, disagreement with the statement (again, combining “strongly disagree” and “disagree”) slightly dipped in 2023, but in 2024 returned to levels observed in 2021. “Don’t know” and “refused” responses have consistently remained below 3 percent across all three years. Almost every Australian has a position on when we should celebrate Australia Day, if at all.

Statistical factors
The 2023 dip might reflect a slight shift in public opinion or be due to statistical factors, such as sampling variability. Either way, public sentiment on this issue seems established.

As Gunai/Kurnai, Gunditjmara, Wiradjuri and Yorta Yorta writer Nayuka Gorrie and Amangu Yamatji woman associate professor Crystal McKinnon have written, the decline in support for Australia Day is the result of decades of activism by Indigenous people.

Though conservative voices have become louder since the failure of the Voice Referendum in 2023, more than 40 percent of the population now believes Australia Day should not be celebrated on January 26.

In addition, the claim of a significant swing towards Australia Day among younger Australians is unsupported.

In 2024, as in earlier iterations of our survey, we found younger Australians (18–34) were more likely to agree that Australia Day should not be celebrated on January 26. More than half of respondents in that age group (53 percent) supported that change, compared to 39 percent of 35–54-year-olds, 33 percent of 55–74-year-olds, and 29 percent of those aged 75 and older.

Conversely, disagreement increases with age. We found 69 percent of those aged 75 and older disagreed, followed by 66 percent of 55–74-year-olds, 59 percent of 35–54-year-olds, and 43 percent of 18–34-year-olds. These trends suggest a steady shift, indicating that an overall majority may favour change within the next two decades.

What might become of Australia Day? We asked those who thought we should not celebrate Australia Day on January 26 what alternative they preferred the most.



Among those who do not want to celebrate Australia Day on January 26, 36 percent prefer replacing it with a new national day on a different date, while 32 percent favour keeping the name but moving it to a different date.

A further 13 percent support keeping January 26 but renaming it to reflect diverse history, and 8 percent advocate abolishing any national day entirely. Another 10 percent didn’t want these options, and less than 1 peecent were unsure.

A lack of clarity
If the big picture suggests a lack of clarity — with nearly 58 percent of the population wanting to keep Australia Day as it is, but 53 percent of younger Australians supporting change — then the task of finding possible alternatives to the status quo seems even more clouded.

Gorrie and McKinnon point to the bigger issues at stake for Indigenous people: treaties, land back, deaths in custody, climate justice, reparations and the state removal of Aboriginal children.

Yet, as our research continues to show, there are few without opinions on this question, and we should not expect it to recede as an issue that animates Australians.

Dr David Lowe is chair in contemporary history, Deakin University; Dr Andrew Singleton is professor of sociology and social research, Deakin University; and Joanna Cruickshank is associate professor in history, Deakin University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Online privacy policies can be 90,000 words long. Here are 3 ways to simplify them

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adam Andreotta, Lecturer, School of Management and Marketing, Curtin University

Rokas Tenys/Shutterstock

Think about the last app you downloaded. Did you read every word of the associated privacy policy? If so, did you fully understand it?

If you said “no” to either of these questions, you are not alone. Only 6% of Australians claim to read all the privacy policies that apply to them.

Don’t blame yourself too much, though. Privacy policies are often long – sometimes up to 90,000 words – and hard to understand. And there may be hundreds that apply to the average internet user (one for each website, app, device, or even car you use).

Regular reviews are also required. In 2023, for example, Elon Musk’s X updated its privacy policy to include the possibility of collecting biometric data.

For these reasons, some privacy scholars have argued that it’s nearly impossible for us to properly manage how our personal data are collected and used online.

But even though it might be hard to imagine, we can regain control over our data. Here are three possible reforms to online privacy policies that could help.

1. Visuals-based privacy policies

One way to shorten privacy policies is by replacing some text with visuals.

Recently, the Australian bank Bankwest developed a visual-style terms and conditions policy to explain one of its products. A consulting engineering company also used visuals in its employment contract.

There is evidence that suggests this promotes transparency and helps users understand the contents of a policy.

Could visuals work with online privacy policies? I think companies should try. Visuals could not only shorten online privacy policies, but also make them more intelligible.

2. Automated consent

Adding visuals won’t solve all the problems with privacy policies, as there would still be too many to go through. Another idea is to automate consent. This essentially means getting software to consent for us.

One example of this software, currently being developed at Carnegie Melon
University in the United States, is personalised privacy assistants. The software promises to:

learn our preferences and help us more effectively manage our privacy settings across a wide range of devices and environments without the need for frequent interruption.

In the future, instead of reading through hundreds of polices, you might simply configure your privacy settings once and then leave the accepting or rejecting of polices up to software.

The software could raise any red flags and make sure that your personal data are being collected and used only in ways that align with your preferences.

The technology does, however, raise a series of ethical and legal issues that will need to be wrestled with before widespread adoption.

For example, who would be liable if the software made a mistake and shared your data in a way that harmed you? Furthermore, privacy assistants would need their own privacy policies. Could users easily review them, and also track or review decisions the assistants made, in a way that was not overwhelming?

3. Ethics review

These techniques may have limited success, however, if the privacy policies themselves fail to offer user choices or are deceptive.

A recent study found that some of the top fertility apps had deceptive privacy policies. And in 2022, the Federal Court of Australia fined Google for misleading people about how it used personal data.

To help address this, privacy policies could be subject to ethical review, in much the same way that researchers must have their work reviewed by ethics committees before they are permitted to conduct research.

If a policy was found to be misleading, lacked transparency, or simply failed to offer users meaningful options, then it would fail to get approval.

Would this really work? And who would be included in the ethics committee? Further, why would companies subject their policies to external review, if they were not required to do so by law?

These are difficult questions to answer. But companies who did subject their polices to review could build trust with users.

Glass building with 'Google' written in colourful letters.
In 2022, the Federal Court of Australia fine Google for misleading people about how it used personal data.
JHVEPhoto/Shutterstock

Testing the alternatives

In 2024, Choice revealed that several prominent car brands, such as Tesla, Kia, and Hyundai, collect people’s driving data and sell it to third-party companies. Many people who drove these cars were not aware of this.

How might the above ideas help?

First, if privacy polices had visuals, data collection and use practices could be explained to users in easier-to-understand ways.

Second, if automated consent software was being used, and users had a choice, the sharing of such driving data could be blocked in advance, without users even having to read the policy, if that was what they preferred. Ideally, users could pre-configure their privacy preferences, and the software could do the rest. For example, automated consent software could indicate to companies that users do not give consent for their driving data to be sold for advertising purposes.

Third, an ethics review committee may suggest that users should be given a choice about whether to share driving data, and that the policy should be transparent and easy to understand.

A parked blue car being recharged.
Some car companies, such as Tesla, collect people’s driving data and sell it to third-party companies.
Jure Divich/Shutterstock

Benefits of being transparent

Recent reforms to privacy laws in Australia are a good start. These reforms promise to give Australians a legal right to take action over serious privacy violations, and have a greater focus on protecting children online.

But many of the ways of empowering users will require companies to go beyond what is legally required.

One of the biggest challenges will be motivating companies to want to change.

It is important to keep in mind there are benefits of being transparent with users. It can help build trust and reputation. And in an era where consumers have become more privacy conscious, here lies an opportunity for companies to get ahead of the game.

The Conversation

Adam Andreotta does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Online privacy policies can be 90,000 words long. Here are 3 ways to simplify them – https://theconversation.com/online-privacy-policies-can-be-90-000-words-long-here-are-3-ways-to-simplify-them-247095

Elon Musk now has an office in the White House. What’s his political game plan?

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Henry Maher, Lecturer in Politics, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

Shutterstock/The Conversation

Elon Musk has emerged as one of the most influential and controversial powerbrokers in the new Trump administration. He spent at least US$277 million (about A$360 million) of his own money to help Donald Trump win re-election, campaigning alongside him around the country.

This significant investment of time and money raises the question of what the world’s wealthiest person hopes to receive in return. Critics have wondered whether Musk’s support for Trump is just a straightforward commercial transaction, with Musk expecting to receive political favours.

Or does it reflect Musk’s own genuinely held political views, and perhaps personal political ambition?

From left to alt-right

Decoding Musk’s political views and tracking how they have changed over time is a complex exercise. He’s hard to pin down, largely by design.

Musk’s current X feed, for example, is a bewildering mix of far-right conspiracy theories about immigration, clips of neoliberal economist Milton Friedman warning about the dangers of inflation, and advertisements for Tesla.

Historically, Musk professes to have been a left libertarian. He says he voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020.

Musk claims that over time, the Democratic party has moved further to the left, leaving him feeling closer politically to the Republican party.

Key to Musk’s political shift, at least by his own account, is his estrangement from his transgender daughter, Vivian Jenna Wilson.

After Vivian’s transition, Musk claimed she was “dead, killed by the woke mind virus”. She is very much alive.

He’s since repeatedly signalled his opposition to transgender rights and gender-affirming care, and diversity, equity and inclusion policies more broadly.

However, if the mere existence of a trans person in his family was enough to cause a political meltdown, Musk was clearly already on a trajectory towards far-right politics.

Rather than responding to a shift in the Democratic Party, it makes more sense to understand Musk’s changing politics as part of a much broader recent phenomenon known as as “the libertarian to alt-right pipeline”.

The political science, explained

Libertarianism has historically tended to be divided between left-wing and right-wing forms.

Left libertarians support economic policies of limited government, such as cutting taxes and social spending, and deregulation more broadly. This is combined with progressive social policies, such as marriage equality and drug decriminalisation.

By contrast, right libertarians support the same set of economic policies, but hold conservative social views, such as opposing abortion rights and celebrating patriotism.

Historically, the Libertarian Party in the United States adopted an awkward middle ground between the two poles.

The past decade, though, has seen the Libertarian Party, and libertarianism more generally, move strongly to the right. In particular, many libertarians have played leading roles in the alt-right movement.

The alt-right or “alternative right” refers to the recent resurgence of far-right political movements opposing multiculturalism, gender equality and diversity, and supporting white nationalism.

The alt-right is a very online movement, with its leading activists renowned for internet trolling and “edgelording” – that is, the posting of controversial and confronting content to deliberately stoke controversy and attract attention.

Though some libertarians have resisted the pull of the alt-right, many have been swept along the pipeline, including prominent leaders in the movement.

Making sense of Musk

While this discussion of theory may seem abstract, it helps to understand what Musk’s values are (beneath the chaotic tweets and Nazi salutes).

In economic terms, Musk remains a limited-government libertarian. He advocates cutting government spending, reducing taxes and repealing regulation – especially regulations that put limits on his businesses.

His formal role in the Trump administration as head of the “Department of Government Efficiency”, also known as DOGE, is targeted at these goals.

Musk has suggested that in cutting government spending, he will particularly target diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. This is the alt-right influence on display.

Alt-right sensibilities are most evident, however, in Musk’s online persona.

On X, Musk has deliberately stoked controversy by boosting and engaging with white nationalists and racist conspiracy theories.

For example, he has favourably engaged with far-right politicians advocating for the antisemitic “Great Replacement theory”. This theory claims Jews are encouraging mass migration to the global north as part of a deliberate plot to eliminate the white race.

More recently, Musk has endorsed the far-right in Germany. He’s also shared videos from known white supremacists outlining the racist “Muslim grooming gangs” conspiracy theory in the United Kingdom.

Whether Musk actually believes these outlandish racist conspiracy theories is, in many ways, irrelevant.

Rather, Musk’s public statements are better understood as reflecting philosopher Harry Frankfurt’s famous definition of “bullshit”. For Frankfurt, “bullshit” refers to statements made to impress or provoke in which the speaker is simply not concerned with whether the statement is actually true.

Much of Musk’s online persona is part of a deliberate alt-right populist strategy to stoke controversy, upset “the left”, and then claim to be a persecuted victim when criticised.

Theory vs practice

Though Musk’s public statements might fit nicely into contemporary libertarianism, there are always contradictions when putting ideology into practice.

For example, despite Musk’s oft-stated preference for limited government, it’s well documented that his companies have received extensive subsidies and support from various governments.

Musk will expect this special treatment to continue under a quintessentially transactional president such as Trump.

The vexed issue of immigration also presents some contradictions.

Across the campaign, both Musk and Trump repeatedly criticised immigration to the US. Reprising the themes of the far-right Great Replacement theory, Musk claimed illegal immigration was a deliberate plot by Democrats to “replace” the existing electorate with “compliant illegals”.

However, after the election Musk has argued Trump should preserve categories of skilled migration such as the H1-B visas. This angered more explicit white supremacists, such as Trump advisor Laura Loomer.

Musk’s motives in arguing for the visas are not humanitarian. H1-B visas allow temporary workers to enter the country for up to six years, making them entirely dependent on the sponsoring company. It’s a situation some have called “indentured servitude”.

These visas have been used heavily in the technology sector, including in companies owned by both Musk and Trump.

An unsteady alliance

So what might we expect from Musk now that he has both political office and influence?

Musk’s stated aim of using DOGE to cut $2 trillion from the US budget would represent an unprecedented transformation of government. It also seems highly unlikely.

Instead, expect Musk to focus on creating controversy by cutting DEI initiatives and other politically sensitive programs, such as support for women’s reproductive rights.

Musk will clearly use his political influence to look after the interests of his companies. Shares in Tesla surged to record highs following Trump’s re-election, suggesting investors believe Musk will be a major financial beneficiary of the second Trump administration.

Finally, Musk will undoubtedly use his new position to remain in the public eye. This last part might lead Musk into conflict with another expert in shaping the media cycle – Trump himself.

Musk has already reportedly fallen out with Vivek Ramaswamy, who will now no longer co-lead DOGE with Musk.

Exactly how stable the alliance between Trump and Musk is, and whether the egos and interests of the two billionaires can continue to coexist, remains to be seen.

If the alliance persists, it will be a key factor in shaping what many are terming the emergence of a “new gilded age” of political corruption and soaring inequality.

The Conversation

Henry Maher does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Elon Musk now has an office in the White House. What’s his political game plan? – https://theconversation.com/elon-musk-now-has-an-office-in-the-white-house-whats-his-political-game-plan-248011

Too many Australians miss out on essential medical care every year. Here’s how to fix ‘GP deserts’

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Breadon, Program Director, Health and Aged Care, Grattan Institute

Zhuravlev Andrey/Shutterstock

Some communities are “GP deserts”, where there are too few GPs to ensure everyone can get the care they need when they need it. These communities are typically sicker and poorer than the rest of Australia, but receive less care and face higher fees.

At the 2025 federal election, all parties should commit to changing that. The next government – whether Labor or Coalition, majority or minority – should set a minimum level of access to GP care, and fund local schemes to fill the worst gaps.

People in GP deserts miss out on care

About half a million Australians live in GP deserts. These are communities in the bottom 5% for GP services per person. Most GP deserts are in remote Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, and some are in Canberra.

People in GP deserts receive 40% fewer GP services than the national average. This means less of the essential check-ups, screening and medication management GPs provide.

Nurses and Aboriginal health workers help plug some of the gap, but even then GP deserts aren’t close to catching up to other areas.

And some people miss out altogether. Last year, 8% of people older than 65 in these areas didn’t see the GP at all, compared to less than 1% in the rest of the country.

Poorer and sicker places miss out, year after year

GP deserts are in the worst possible places. These communities are typically sicker and poorer, so they should be getting more care than the rest of Australia, not less.

People in GP deserts are almost twice more likely to go to hospital for a condition that might have been avoided with good primary care, or to die from an avoidable cause.

Most GP deserts are in the bottom 40% for wealth, yet pay more for care. Patients in GP deserts are bulk billed six percentage points less than the national average.

These communities miss out year after year. While rises and falls in national bulk billing rates get headlines, the persistent gaps in GP care are ignored. The same communities have languished well below the national average for more than a decade.

Policies to boost rural primary care don’t go far enough

Most GP deserts are rural, so recent policies to boost rural primary care could help a bit.

In response to rising out-of-pocket costs, the government has committed A$3.5 billion to triple bulk-billing payments for the most disadvantaged. Those payments are much higher for clinics in rural areas. An uptick in rural bulk billing last year is an early indication it may be working.

Older man sits in living room in a wheelchair
Older people in GP deserts are much less likely to see a GP than their peers in other parts of the country.
Theera Disayarat/Shutterstock

New rural medical schools and programs should help boost rural GP supply, since students who come from, and train in, rural areas are more likely to work in them. A “rural generalist” pathway recognises GPs who have trained in an additional skill, such as obstetrics or mental health services.

But broad-based rural policies are not enough. Not all rural areas are GP deserts, and not all GP deserts are rural. Australia also needs more tailored approaches.

Local schemes can work

Some communities have taken matters into their own hands.

In Triabunna on Tasmania’s east coast, a retirement in 2020 saw residents left with only one GP, forcing people to travel to other areas for care, sometimes for well over an hour. This was a problem for other towns in the region too, such as Swansea and Bicheno, as well as much of rural Tasmania.

In desperation, the local council has introduced a A$90 medical levy to help fund new clinics. It’s also trialling a new multidisciplinary care approach, bringing together many different health practitioners to provide care at a single contact point and reduce pressure on GPs. Residents get more care and spend less time and effort coordinating individual appointments.

Murrumbidgee in New South Wales has taken a different approach. There, trainee doctors retain a single employer throughout their placements. That means they can work across the region, in clinics funded by the federal government and hospitals managed by the state government, without losing employment benefits. That helps trainees to stay closely connected to their communities and their patients. Murrumbidgee’s success has inspired similar trials in other parts of NSW, South Australia, Queensland and Tasmania.

These are promising approaches, but they put the burden on communities to piece together funding to plug holes. Without secure funding, these fixes will remain piecemeal and precarious, and risk a bidding war to attract GPs, which would leave poorer communities behind.

Australia should guarantee a minimum level of GP care

The federal government should guarantee a minimum level of general practice for all communities. If services funded by Medicare and other sources stay below that level for years, funding should automatically become available to bridge the gap.

The federal and state governments should be accountable for fixing GP deserts. These regions typically have small populations, few clinicians, and limited infrastructure. So governments must work together to make the best use of scarce resources.

GP writes script for patient.
Some states have introduced schemes where doctors can work in a range of locations.
Stephen Barnes/Shutterstock

Funding must be flexible, because every GP desert is different. Sometimes the solution may be as simple as helping an existing clinic hire extra staff. Other communities may want to set up a new clinic, or introduce telehealth for routine check-ups. There is no lack of ideas about how to close gaps in care, the problem lies in funding them.

Lifting all GP deserts to the top of the desert threshold – or guaranteeing at least 4.5 GP services per person per year, adjusted for age, would cost the federal government at least A$30 million a year in Medicare payments.

Providing extra services in GP deserts will be more expensive than average. But even if the cost was doubled or tripled, it would still be only a fraction of the billions of dollars of extra incentives GPs are getting to bulk bill – and it would transform the communities that need help the most.

GP deserts didn’t appear overnight. Successive governments have left some communities with too little primary care. The looming federal election gives every party the opportunity to make amends.

If they do, the next term of government could see GP deserts eliminated for good.

The Conversation

Peter Breadon and Wendy Hu do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment. Grattan Institute has been supported in its work by government, corporates, and philanthropic gifts. A full list of supporting organisations is published at www.grattan.edu.au.

.

ref. Too many Australians miss out on essential medical care every year. Here’s how to fix ‘GP deserts’ – https://theconversation.com/too-many-australians-miss-out-on-essential-medical-care-every-year-heres-how-to-fix-gp-deserts-245253

3 reasons to fear humanity won’t reach net-zero emissions – and 4 reasons we might just do it

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nick Rowley, Honorary Associate Professor, The Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

UNIKYLUCKK/Shutterstock

Within hours of taking office last week, President Donald Trump made good on his pledges to wind back the United States’ climate action – including withdrawing the US from the Paris Agreement.

This political show comes barely a week after 2024 was revealed as the world’s hottest year and following the catastrophic Los Angeles fires. The fires directly killed 20 people; potentially many more will die from toxic smoke and other after-effects.

The science is clear: achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 is humanity’s only hope of achieving some measure of climate security. It’s time to think deeply on our chances of getting there.

Here, I outline a few reasons for pessimism, and for hope.

Reasons for pessimism

1. The data doesn’t lie

The landmark Paris Agreement, signed by 196 nations in 2015, aimed to limit global temperature rise to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels while pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5°C. Achieving that requires reaching net-zero emissions by mid-century.

Yet nearly a decade after the agreement, global emissions continue to rise. The Global Carbon Budget estimates a record-high 37.4 billion tonnes of CO₂ was emitted last year.

And 2024 was not just the hottest year on record – it was the first year to exceed the 1.5°C temperature threshold.

It’s not too late to change trajectory. But sadly, the data show the bathtub is fast filling, and the tap is still running hard.

2. Renewable energy rollout is too slow

Renewable energy deployment is increasing and the price is falling. But it’s not happening fast enough.

According to the International Energy Agency, clean energy investment must more than double this decade if the net-zero goal is to be reached by 2050. In particular, clean energy investment in developing countries must increase significantly.

Richer nations – which are largely responsible for the stock of emissions in the atmosphere driving the climate problem – are failing to help developing countries make the clean energy shift. At the COP29 climate talks in Baku last year, developed nations agreed to give only US$300 billion (A$474 billion) a year in climate finance to developing countries by 2035. It is nowhere near enough.

people on dusty ground look up at solar panel
Richer nations have not provided the funds the developing world needs to make the clean energy shift.
PradeepGaurs/Shutterstock

3. The net-zero smokescreen

Net-zero emissions is not the same as zero emissions. It allows some industries to keep polluting, if equivalent emissions are removed from the atmosphere elsewhere to keep the balance at zero.

This means nations that are purportedly committed to the net-zero goal can continue with business as usual, or worse.

In 2023, for example, then-British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak announced 100 new oil and gas licences in the North Sea, saying it was “entirely consistent” with his government’s net-zero goal. The same logic has allowed Australia’s environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, to approve new coal mines.

Both decisions came from governments that have pledged commitment to reaching net-zero – yet both are clearly making the goal harder to achieve.

These are just a few of the reasons to feel pessimistic about getting to net-zero – there are many more.

Barriers exist to extracting the critical minerals needed in low-emissions technology. Differences in human relationships to nature means we will never reach full agreement on how to respond to environmental risk. And globally, there is rising mistrust in international agreements and institutions.

But it’s not all doom and gloom. Here’s why.

Reasons for hope

1. Renewable energy is cheap

Renewable energy has become the cheapest form of new electricity in history. The technologies are now less expensive than coal and gas in most major countries.

The International Energy Agency projects global renewable capacity will increase by more than 5,520 gigawatts between 2024 and 2030. This is 2.6 times more than the deployment over the six years to 2023.

The growth in rooftop solar is expected to more than triple, as equipment costs decline and social acceptance increases.

person installing solar panels
Renewable energy has become the [cheapest form of new electricity in history.
Quality Stock Arts/Shutterstock

2. Commitments to net-zero are many

Global support for the net-zero goal is significant. According to Net Zero Tracker, 147 of 198 countries have set a net-zero target. Some 1,176 of the 2,000 largest publicly traded companies by revenue have also adopted it.

Without seeing the plans, numbers, laws, regulations and investments required to achieve these ambitions, one should be sceptical – but not cynical.

3. Tech innovation and climate response are in lock-step

Twenty-five years ago, smartphones did not exist, email was new and we “surfed” a new thing called the worldwide web with a slow dial-up modem.

Similarly, our technologies will look very different 25 years from now – and many developments will ultimately help deliver the net-zero goal.

Smart electricity grids, for example, use digital technologies, sensors and software to precisely meet the demand of electricity users – making the system more efficient and reducing carbon emissions.

The European Union, United States and China are all investing vast sums to support their development.

Already, we can use smart meters to monitor electricity generation from our roofs to our cars and home batteries. This allows zero-emissions electricity to both be used and sold back to the grid.

Tech innovation is not confined to the electricity sector. As Australia’s Climate Change Authority has stated, technology offers pathways to reduce emissions across the economy – in transport, agriculture, industry and more.

woman looks at tablet screen
We already have the means to monitor electricity generation and use at home.
aslysun/Shutterstock

4. Human talent and capacity

Many of humanity’s best minds are now focused on reducing climate risk.

Climate change mitigation is attracting remarkable professionals in roles unimaginable 25 years ago – from engineers developing breakthrough renewable technologies to financial experts designing green investment products, policy specialists crafting new regulations, and climate scientists refining our understanding of climate risk.

And among much of the public, global support for climate action is strong.

No time for despair

The fact that humans caused climate change is an enabling truth: we also have the capacity to make decisions to address the problem.

Our choices today will make a difference. It will be a bumpy road – but to achieve some measure of climate security, net-zero is a goal we must achieve.

The Conversation

Nick Rowley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. 3 reasons to fear humanity won’t reach net-zero emissions – and 4 reasons we might just do it – https://theconversation.com/3-reasons-to-fear-humanity-wont-reach-net-zero-emissions-and-4-reasons-we-might-just-do-it-247992

Take breaks, research your options and ditch your phone: how to take care of yourself during Year 12

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steven Lewis, Associate Professor of Comparative Education, Australian Catholic University

Karolina Grabowska/Pexels, CC BY

Year 12 is arguably the most important year of school. It is full of exams, milestones and decisions.

It is both the culmination of formal learning and the gateway to what lies beyond. It is an end and beginning all in one.

Unsurprisingly, many Year 12s find it to be a demanding and stressful time. So, what mindsets and habits can you set up now to give yourself the stamina and support you need for the year ahead?

Put your exams in context

The academic focus of Year 12 is an obvious source of stress for many students. While this is natural, there are many things you can do to put all the assignments and assessments in context.

Remember Year 12 should always be framed as preparing students for life after school. It is about working out where you want to go – be it further study or work – and then keeping open as many possible pathways to get you there.

While students might have a particular career goal in mind, there are always many options and they don’t all hinge entirely on your ATAR.

Know what the entrance requirements are for your preferred option (such as getting into a particular course at university), but also research other pathways if you don’t get your desired grades or preferences.

There are always alternative ways into your dream course or field of study. A TAFE diploma can unlock entrance to a bachelor’s degree and a bachelor of arts can open entry into postgraduate law. Many universities also offer early entry schemes that don’t rely on Year 12 grades or ATAR rankings.

Most of all, try to avoid thinking there is only one right path. It is about finding the right path for you at this point in time.

A teenage boy wears headphones while he studies next to a couch.
Remember your ‘success’ this year does not hinge on your ATAR.
Karolina Grabowska/Pexels, CC BY



Read more:
‘Practically perfect’: why the media’s focus on ‘top’ Year 12 students needs to change


Don’t study all the time

While study is going to play a large role this year, it is important to make time for your mental, physical and emotional wellbeing. This will help give you stamina to face your study workload and the other demands of the year.

For example, playing sport or making art can help to enhance cognition, reduce stress and improve self-confidence.

Work out a schedule that allows time for study, rest and the things you enjoy. This could also include catch-ups with friends, walking your dog or cooking dinner with your family.

Remember that it is recommended teenagers get 8-10 hours of sleep per day. If you don’t get enough sleep, it makes it harder to think, learn and regulate your emotions.

And while it might be unpopular, it is also important to avoid excessive screen time. This can also help your sleep and decrease stress.

Create habits that can make you less reactive to technology. For example, put your phone on “do not disturb” mode when you are studying, and try to avoid screens at least an hour before bed.

A young woman pats a small, happy dog.
Time with a furry friend can help as you manage the demands of Year 12.
Samson Katt/ Pexels, CC BY



Read more:
Avoid cramming and don’t just highlight bits of text: how to help your memory when preparing for exams


You’re not alone

If you’re feeling overwhelmed, don’t be afraid to ask for help.

This may be from teachers or school guidance officers, or it may be from parents, older siblings or friends. Reach out to trusted people early if you are worried or anxious, and support your fellow Year 12s to do the same.

Look for signs in yourself and others that could suggest at-risk mental health.

This might be difficulty concentrating, inability to sleep or significant changes in mood and behaviour. Seeking help early can help avoid these issues escalating.


If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14 or Kids Helpline on 1800 55 1800.

The Conversation

Steven Lewis receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

ref. Take breaks, research your options and ditch your phone: how to take care of yourself during Year 12 – https://theconversation.com/take-breaks-research-your-options-and-ditch-your-phone-how-to-take-care-of-yourself-during-year-12-247897

The ‘singles tax’ means you often pay more for going it alone. Here’s how it works

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alicia Bubb, Research & Teaching Sessional Academic, RMIT University

lightman_pic/Shutterstock

Heard of the “singles tax”? Going it alone can also come with a hidden financial burden you may not be aware of.

Obviously, this isn’t an official levy paid to anyone in particular. It simply refers to the higher costs single people face compared to couples or families.

Single-person households have been on the rise in Australia. It’s projected they’ll account for up to 28% of all households in 2046.

People are marrying later, divorce rates remain high and an ageing population means more people live alone in older age. Many people also make a conscious decision to remain single, seeing it as a sign of independence and empowerment.

This is part of a global trend, with singledom increasing in Europe, North America and Asia.

So, how does the singles tax work – and is it worse for some groups than others? What, if anything, can we do about it?

Why does being single cost more?

One of the biggest drivers of the singles tax is the inability to split important everyday costs. For example, a single person renting a one-bedroom apartment has to bear the full cost, while a couple sharing it can split the rent.

Woman selecting vegetables from the fresh produce section of a supermarket
Being single can mean not being being able to split living costs like groceries.
Gorodenkoff/Shutterstock

Singles often miss out on the savings from bulk grocery purchases, as larger households consume more and can take better advantage of these deals.

Fixed costs for a house like electricity, water and internet bills often don’t increase by much when you add an extra user or two. Living alone means you pay more.

These are all examples of how couples benefit from economies of scale – the cost advantage that comes from sharing fixed or semi-fixed expenses – simply by living together.

My calculations, based on the most recent data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), show that singles spend about 3% more per person on goods and services compared to couples.

Compared to couples with children, single parents spend about 19% more per person. While government support mechanisms such as the child care subsidy exist, many single parents find them insufficient, especially if they work irregular hours.

Beyond the essentials

The singles tax extends beyond our “essential needs” and into the costs of travel, socialising and entertainment.

Solo travellers, for example, may encounter something called a “single supplement” – an extra fee charged for utilising an accommodation or travel product designed for two people.

Streaming services such as Netflix and Spotify offer family plans at slightly higher prices than individual ones, making them more cost-effective for larger households.

Person holding remote, screen shows a streaming service loading screen
Couples and families can easily split fixed costs, such as streaming subscriptions.
Vantage_DS/Shutterstock

A global phenomenon

Reports from around the world paint a similar picture.

In the United States, research by real estate marketplace Zillow found singles pay on average US$7,000 ($A11,100) more annually for housing, compared to those sharing a two-bedroom apartment.

In Europe, higher living costs and limited government supports put singles at a disadvantage. And in Canada, singles report feeling the pinch of rising rent and grocery prices.

The tax systems of many countries can amplify the financial burden of being single, by favouring couples and families.

In the United States, for example, tax policies intended to alleviate poverty often exclude childless adults, disproportionately taxing them into poverty.

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) reduces tax liabilities by providing refundable credits to low-income workers. It’s had some significant benefits for families, but offers minimal support to single, childless individuals.

Man sitting on bed alone in room facing a window
Many tax structures disadvantage single-person households.
WPixz/Shutterstock

As economist Patricia Apps argues, tax and transfer policies often fail to account for the complexities of household income distribution.

These systems favour traditional family structures by providing benefits like spousal offsets or joint income tax breaks. Single individuals and single-parent households are left bearing a disproportionate financial burden.

Who is affected the most?

The singles tax disproportionately impacts women, who are more likely to live alone than men.

This can compound existing financial pressures such as the gender pay gap, taking career breaks, and societal expectations leaving them with lower retirement savings.

For older women, the singles tax adds another layer of difficulty to maintaining financial security.

And it can seriously exacerbate financial pressures on single mothers. Many rely on child support payments, which are often inconsistent or inefficient, leaving them financially vulnerable.

Working part-time or in casual roles due to caregiving responsibilities further limits their earning potential.

Working mother taking notes while daughter is sitting on her lap and using laptop
Single mothers may be disproportionately impacted by the singles tax.
Drazen Zigic/Shutterstock

There are unique challenges for single men, too, who may lack the same access to family-oriented subsidies and workplace flexibility. Single men may also face societal expectations to spend more on dating or socialising.

Alarmingly, men are disproportionately represented among the homeless population, making up 55.9% of people experiencing homelessness, and single men have a higher risk of premature death.

Growing recognition

While the singles tax highlights big systemic inequities, there are signs the issue is receiving more attention.

Some advocacy groups are pushing for better financial protections and child support reforms for single mothers.

Similarly, efforts to address homelessness have gained momentum, with increased attention to advocacy and services for single men facing housing insecurity.

There is also the potential to design tax systems to reduce these inequities. Tax systems that treat individuals as economic units, instead of basing benefits on household structures, could mitigate the singles tax and create a fairer system for all.

The Conversation

Nothing to disclose.

Sarah Sinclair does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. The ‘singles tax’ means you often pay more for going it alone. Here’s how it works – https://theconversation.com/the-singles-tax-means-you-often-pay-more-for-going-it-alone-heres-how-it-works-247578

Breaking up the band: why solo artists have come to dominate the music charts

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sam Whiting, Vice-Chancellor’s Senior Research Fellow, RMIT University

Shutterstock

Predictions for this year’s Hottest 100 countdown revealed an interesting trend that has come to dominate popular music over the past decade: the prevalence of solo artists over bands.

In the past 15 years, only five winners of the Hottest 100 were bands, compared to 13 in the 15 years prior to that. This shift is being replicated across charts globally.

And it’s not just rock bands that are losing out, but bands of all sorts, including pop groups (with the considerable exception of K-pop).

The rise of solo artists doesn’t signify some sort of embrace of a hyper-individual idol culture, nor should we nostalgically lament a mythical “golden era of bands”. Solo artists have always been pervasive within popular music. Also, most bands are driven by one or two key songwriters, and often fronted by a charismatic individual.

The trend towards solo artists is less a product of culture, and more a result of the creative and economic realities of pop music’s production, consumption, distribution and marketing.

Doja Cat took out the top spot in the 2023 Triple J Hottest 100.

Doing more with less

With the emergence of digital audio workstations, home studio technologies, and the widespread availability of video tutorials, musicians and songwriters no longer need costly rehearsal rooms and recording studios to produce new music.

They can record demos and workshop material with less players in the room, or in many cases with no room at all – as a large bulk of the work is done digitally.

This has made writing and producing music cheaper, easier and more efficient. What previously might have required a whole band can now be done by a single artist with the help of a producer and some session musicians.

More revenue between less people

It’s no secret musicians are doing it tough in the streaming era. Many receive limited income from recorded music, and are pushed to depend heavily on touring and merchandise.

Why then, would creatives want to increase their costs by bringing in more mouths to feed? Whether you’re a band or a solo artist, touring can come with financial risk and even major financial loss.

Solo artists retain the lion’s share of whatever profits are made. Rather than negotiating tricky revenue-sharing agreements between members, they can hire session and contract musicians as needed for recording and touring, keeping costs down and side-stepping ownership issues that might lead to tension in a band.

Such arrangements also make it easier to market the artist and music itself.

The artist as a brand

Creating a successful brand as a musician is more effective when working with one or two key identities, rather than a collective such as a band.

Even popular K-pop groups – which stand as an exception to the trend towards solo acts – emphasise individual members, marketing each one to a different part of their fan-base.

Likewise, many bands are strongly identified with a charismatic front-person, who tends to double as an artistic spokesperson.

It’s easier to curate an artistic and aesthetic vision around one individual, rather than several. This also helps streamline marketing activities, as well as touring and media engagements.

Bands break up

It’s a harsh reality that bands break up.

Bands can break up for many reasons, but no doubt the strain of touring plays a major role. With an increased prevalence of mental health issues among international touring musicians, as well as power imbalances and exploitative labour practices entrenched in the live music sector – touring can take a toll on many bands.

In the years since the COVID pandemic, more and more artists have cancelled tours, citing exhaustion and burnout. Solo artists only have to make this decision for themselves (although it effects their touring crew), whereas bands have to negotiate such crucial decisions collectively.

Despite good intentions and industry success, having to maintain creative and business relationships with the same group of people often becomes unsustainable.

Solo artists have a clearer separation between their creative, business and personal relationships. They can maintain a business model that doesn’t necessarily rely on the consistent commitment of three, four or five people.

Then again, this commitment is possibly the very thing that makes bands such an intriguing artistic phenemonen: a group of individuals working together to create something greater than the sum of their parts.

Such demonstrations of collective creative alchemy might be the reason bands continue to captivate our attention, despite the atomising creative and economic realities of the modern music industry.




Read more:
This K-pop band just made US Billboard history. Here’s how Stray Kids conquered the music world


The Conversation

Sam Whiting receives funding from RMIT University and the Winston Churchill Trust.

ref. Breaking up the band: why solo artists have come to dominate the music charts – https://theconversation.com/breaking-up-the-band-why-solo-artists-have-come-to-dominate-the-music-charts-248123

Wanting to ‘return to normal’ after a disaster is understandable, but often problematic

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anthony Richardson, Senior Lecturer and Deputy Director, Te Puna Ako Centre for Tertiary Teaching and Learning, University of Waikato

Media coverage of the recent fires in Los Angeles showed the heartbreaking damage in Pacific Palisades and elsewhere across Los Angeles County. People lost not only their houses but also the thriving communities of which they had been part.

What was quickly apparent was the desire to rebuild. People often want their lives to bounce back from every crisis or disaster and to recreate what they have lost.

And this points to a broader issue that emerges after many natural disasters. People want to rebuild and return to normal when, in the face of an increasingly volatile climate, the best option may be to adapt and change.

There is a tension between a common understanding of personal resilience and the resilience of complex adaptive systems such as cities. People have a psychological and social need for stability and permanence, but all complex systems are resilient only because they adapt when forced to.

In New Zealand, the same tension emerged in the aftermath of Cyclone Gabrielle. Ahead of the second anniversary of the devastating cyclone – and as Northland is battered, yet again, by severe weather and flooding – New Zealanders need to ask how we can balance our personal resilience and need for stability while also acknowledging the need for a managed retreat.

The long history of fires in Los Angeles

In his essay The Case for Letting Malibu Burn, writer Mike Davis outlines how fire is an inescapable part of Los Angeles history and how after each fire the city has always been rebuilt.

Davis’ work focuses on Los Angeles but raises important questions about the future of all communities facing increasing risks from climate change.

The repeated rebuilds in Los Angeles have created an expectation that the city will be rebuilt after every fire.

But the city also has unique physical features that make such fires inescapable: the combination of the Santa Ana winds blowing from the desert with chaparral vegetation growing in the steep and dry canyons.

Fire has always been a natural part of the cycle of regeneration in this landscape. What has changed is the encroachment of human dwellings at the foot of these hills and canyons, and into them. Between 1990 and 2020, nearly 45% of the homes built in California were placed in these high fire risk areas.

Climate change is also making both localised rain events and droughts in the Los Angeles environs more extreme, creating larger and then drier fuel loads.

From a systems perspective, a managed retreat from the areas of worst fire risk makes sense. The resilience of cities requires them to be adaptive.

Yet adaptation in Los Angeles is largely not happening. After previous fires, rebuilding has generally occurred within six years and with minimal to no change in building design or placement. People have found comfort in the idea of “bouncing back” like a rubber ball.

Pricing in the risk

There is one group within this complex system which is actually adapting in the face of increasing climate change – in Los Angeles and elsewhere, including in New Zealand.

Home insurers have drastically raised premiums in Los Angeles, or removed cover entirely from many homeowners, to cover ever-growing losses. The insurance bill for these recent fires is predicted to be US$30 billion and the frequency and cost of such climate disasters is increasing.

Together, the 2023 Auckland Anniversary floods and Cyclone Gabrielle cost insurers more than NZ$3.5 billion. The cost of insurance in New Zealand rose by 14% in 2024, significantly outpacing general consumer price inflation.

In system terms, increased insurance premiums represent some of the adaptive capacity of a community that insists on rebuilding in the face of increasing risks.

In economic terms, you can also think of insurance premiums as a market signal which is pricing the ever-increasing risk of disaster into the cost of living in such fire or flood zones.

Accepting risk or accepting change in NZ

The approaching second anniversary of Cyclone Gabrielle and the ongoing debate over managed retreat demonstrates the same tension in Aotearoa New Zealand between increasing climate risks and our very human need to rebuild and restore what we have lost.

City and regional councils are facing questions about whether to build (or rebuild) in high-risk areas.

But with two thirds of our population living in flood risk areas and both flood risks and insurance costs increasing, how many times can New Zealand rebuild in these risky areas?

In the end, we need to remember that a crucial, and sometimes overlooked, element of psychological resilience is acceptance of change.

In a world of accelerating climate change and related disasters this is increasingly the more realistic response.

The Conversation

Anthony Richardson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Wanting to ‘return to normal’ after a disaster is understandable, but often problematic – https://theconversation.com/wanting-to-return-to-normal-after-a-disaster-is-understandable-but-often-problematic-247884

Trump’s ‘free speech’ vision comes at expense of press freedom

Pacific Media Watch

Among his first official acts on returning to the White House, President Donald Trump issued an executive order “restoring freedom of speech and ending federal censorship”.

Implicit in this vaguely written document: the United States is done fighting mis- and disinformation online, reports the Paris-based global media watchdog Reporters Without Borders (RSF).

Meanwhile, far from living up to the letter or spirit of his own order, Trump is fighting battles against the American news media on multiple fronts and has pardoned at least 13 individuals convicted or charged for attacking journalists in the 6 January 2021 insurrection.

An RSF statement strongly refutes Trump’s “distorted vision of free speech, which is inherently detrimental to press freedom”.

Trump has long been one of social media’s most prevalent spreaders of false information, and his executive order, “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship,” is the latest in a series of victories for the propagators of disinformation online.

Bowing to pressure from Trump, Mark Zuckerberg, whose Meta platforms are already hostile to journalism, did away with fact-checking on Facebook, which the tech mogul falsely equated to censorship while throwing fact-checking journalists under the bus.

Trump ally Elon Musk also dismantled the meagre trust and safety safeguards in place when he took over Twitter and proceeded to arbitrarily ban journalists who were critical of him from the site.

‘Free speech’ isn’t ‘free of facts’
“Free speech doesn’t mean public discourse has to be free of facts. Donald Trump and his Big Tech cronies like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg are dismantling what few guardrails the internet had to protect the integrity of information,” said RSF’s USA executive director Clayton Weimers.

“We cannot ignore the irony of Trump appointing himself the chief crusader for ‘free speech’ while he continues to personally attack press freedom — a pillar of the First Amendment — and has vowed to weaponise the federal government against expression he doesn’t like.

“If Trump means what he says in his own executive order, he could start by dropping his lawsuits against news organisations.”

Trump recently settled a lawsuit out of court with ABC News parent company Disney, but is still suing the Des Moines Register and its parent company Gannett for publishing a poll unfavourable to his campaign, and the Pulitzer Center board for awarding coverage of his 2016 campaign’s alleged ties with Russia.

Trump should immediately drop both lawsuits and refrain from launching others while in office.

After a campaign where he attacked the press on a daily basis, Trump has continued to berate the media and dismissed its legitimacy to critique him.

During a press conference the day after he took office, Trump reproached NBC reporter Peter Alexander for questions about Trump’s blanket pardons of the January 6th riot participants, saying, “Just look at the numbers on the election.

“We won this election in a landslide, because the American public is tired of people like you that are just one-sided, horrible people, in terms of crime.”

An incoherent press freedom policy
The executive order also flies in the face of his violent rhetoric against journalists.

The order asserts that during the Biden administration, “the Federal government infringed on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens across the United States in a manner that advanced the government’s preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate.”

It goes on to state, “It is the policy of the United States to ensure that no Federal Government officer, employee, or agent engages in or facilitates any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.”

This stated policy, laudable in a vacuum, even if made redundant by the First Amendment, is rendered meaningless by Trump’s explicit threats to weaponise the government against the media, which have recently included threats to revoke broadcast licenses in political retaliation, investigate news organizations that criticise him, and jail journalists who refuse to expose confidential sources.

Instead, the policy appears designed to amplify disinformation, which benefits a President of the United States who has proven willing to spread disinformation that furthered his political interests on matters small and large.

“If Trump is serious about his stated commitment to free speech, RSF suggests he begin by ensuring his own actions serve to protect the free press, rather than censoring or punishing media outlets,” the watchdog said.

“The United States has seen a steady decline in its press freedom ranking in RSF’s World Press Freedom Index over the past decade to a current ranking of 55th out of 180 countries, with presidents from both parties presiding over this backslide.

“While Trump is not entirely responsible for the present situation, his frequent attacks on the news media have no doubt contributed to the decline in trust in the media, which has been driven partly by partisan attitudes towards journalism.

“Trump’s violent rhetoric can also contribute to real-life violence — assaults on journalists nearly doubled in 2024, when his campaign was at its apex, compared to 2023.”

Pacific Media Watch collaborates with RSF.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Ni-Vanuatu journalist Doddy Morris balances grief and duty in the aftermath of earthquake

By Lagipoiva Cherelle Jackson

For Doddy Morris, a journalist with the Vanuatu Daily Post, the 7.3 magnitude earthquake that struck Vanuatu last month on December 17, 2024, was more than just a story — it was a personal tragedy.

Amid the chaos, Morris learned his brother, an Anglican priest, had died.

“My mom called me crying and asked, ‘Did your brother die?’. I wasn’t sure and told her I was heading to Vila Central Hospital right away,” he recalled.

Morris arrived at the hospital to confirm the worst. “My heart sank when I confirmed that my brother had indeed passed away. At that moment, I forgot about my job.”

Doddy’s brother’s coffin . . . Doddy bids him farewell before the casket is flown to their home island. Image: Doddy Morris The New Atoll

Despite his grief, Morris joined his remaining brothers at the hospital mortuary that night, staying by their deceased sibling’s side and mourning together. “We were the only ones there. We spent the whole night drinking kava outside while he lay in the cool room,” he said.

The quake — which claimed 14 lives, injured more than 265 people, and displaced more than 1000 — left an indelible mark on Port Vila and its residents. Infrastructure damage was extensive, with schools, homes, and water reserves destroyed, and the Central Business District (CBD) heavily impacted.

In the days following the earthquake, Morris returned to his role as a reporter, capturing the unfolding crisis despite the emotional toll. “When the earthquake struck, I thought I was going to die myself,” he said. Yet, minutes after the tremor subsided, he grabbed his camera and rushed to the CBD.

At the heart of the destruction, he witnessed harrowing scenes. “I was shocked to see the collapsed Billabong building. A body lay covered with a blue tarpaulin, and Pro Rescue teams were trying to save others who were trapped inside,” Morris recounted.

The lack of a network connection frustrated his efforts to report live, but he pressed on, documenting the damage.

A month after the disaster, Morris continues to cover the aftermath as Vanuatu transitions from emergency response to recovery. “A month has passed since the earthquake, but the memories remain fresh. We don’t know when Port Vila will return to normal,” he said.

His photojournalism has been demonstrating the true impact of the earthquake as he continues to capture the mourning of a nation after such a tragic event.

Doddy Morris’ photojournalism . . . demonstrating the true impact of the earthquake as he continues to capture the mourning of a nation after such a tragic event. Image: Vanuatu Daily Post/The New Atoll

The earthquake left deep scars, not only on the nation’s infrastructure but also on its people. “Unlike cyclones, which we can predict, prepare for, and survive, earthquakes strike without warning and show no mercy,” Morris said.

Through grief and uncertainty, Morris remains committed to his work, documenting the resilience of his community and the challenges they face as they rebuild. His reporting serves as a testament to the strength of both the people of Vanuatu and a journalist who continues to bear witness, even in the face of personal loss.

Journalist Doddy Morris . . . reporting on the traumatic events of the earthquake meant confronting his own grief while documenting the grief of others. Image: The New Atoll

Reporting on his own community while grappling with personal loss is a reality for many Pacific Island journalists who cover disasters. For Doddy Morris, reporting on the traumatic events of the earthquake meant confronting his own grief while documenting the grief of others.

Dr Lagipoiva Cherelle Jackson is a Pacific journalism trainer with the Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma. She expresses her support for Morris and his colleagues in showing “extraordinary courage and resilience”. This article was first published by The New Atoll and is republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

News Corp lies to Australian Parliament in lobbying putsch to change media laws

Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation has misled the Australian Parliament and is liable to prosecution — not that government will lift a finger to enforce the law, reports Michael West Media.

SPECIAL REPORT: By Michael West

Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation has misled the Australian Parliament. In a submission to the Senate, the company claimed, “Foxtel also pays millions of dollars in income tax, GST and payroll tax, unlike many of our large international digital competitors”.

However, an MWM investigation into the financial affairs of Foxtel has shown Foxtel was paying zero income tax when it told the Senate it was paying “millions”. The penalty for lying to the Senate is potential imprisonment, although “contempt of Parliament” laws are never enforced.

The investigation found that NXE, the entity that controls Foxtel, paid no income tax in any of the five years from 2019 to 2023. During this time it generated $14 billion of total income.

The total tax payable across this period is $0. The average total income is $2.8 billion per year.

Foxtel Submission to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee Inquiry into The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No.1) Bill. Image: MWM screenshot

Why did News Corporation mislead the Parliament? The plausible answers are in its Foxtel Submission to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee Inquiry into The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment.

In May 2021 — which is also where the transgression occurred — the media executives for the American tycoon were lobbying a Parliamentary committee to change the laws in their favour.

By this time, Netflix had leap-frogged Foxtel Pay TV subscriptions in Australia and Foxtel was complaining it had to spend too much money on producing local Australian content under the laws of the time. Also that Netflix paid almost no tax.

Big-league tax dodger
They were correct in this. Netflix, which is a big-league tax dodger itself, was by then making bucketloads of money in Australia but with zero local content requirements.

Making television drama and so forth is expensive. It is far cheaper to pipe foreign content through your channels online. As Netflix does.

The misleading of Parliament by corporations is rife, and contempt laws need to be enforced, as demonstrated routinely by the PwC inquiry last year. Corporations and their representatives routinely lie in their pursuit of corporate objectives.

If democracy is to function better, the information provided to Parliament needs to be clarified, beyond doubt, as reliable. Former senator Rex Patrick has made the point in these pages.

Even in this short statement to the committee of inquiry (published above), there are other misleading statements. Like many companies defending their failure to pay adequate income tax, Foxtel claims that it “paid millions” in GST and payroll tax.

Companies don’t “pay” GST or payroll tax. They collect these taxes on behalf of governments.

Little regard for laws
Further to the contempt of Parliament, so little regard for the laws of Australia is shown by corporations that the local American boss of a small gas fracking company, Tamboran Resources, controlled by a US oil billionaire, didn’t even bother turning up to give evidence when asked.

This despite being rewarded with millions in public grant money.

Politicians need to muscle up, as Greens Senator Nick McKim did when grilling former Woolies boss Brad Banducci for prevaricating over providing evidence to the supermarket inquiry.

Michael West established Michael West Media in 2016 to focus on journalism of high public interest, particularly the rising power of corporations over democracy. West was formerly a journalist and editor with Fairfax newspapers, a columnist for News Corp and even, once, a stockbroker. This article was first published by Michael West Media and is reopublished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

NZ Palestinian network co-founder Janfrie Wakim praises ‘heroic Gaza’, calls for more action

Asia Pacific Report

A co-founder of a national Palestinian solidarity network in Aotearoa New Zealand today praised the “heroic” resilience and sacrifice of the people of Gaza in the face of Israel’s ruthless attempt to destroy the besieged enclave of more than 2 million people.

Speaking at the first solidarity rally in Auckland Tāmaki Makaurau since the fragile ceasefire came into force last Sunday, Janfrie Wakim of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) also paid tribute to New Zealand protesters who have supported the Palestine cause for the 68th week.

“Thank you all for coming to this rally — the first since 7 October 2023 when no bombs are dropping on Gaza,” she declared.

“The ceasefire in Gaza is fragile but let’s celebrate the success of the resistance, the resilience, and the fortitude — the sumud [steadfastness] — of the heroic Palestinian people.

“Israel has failed. It has not achieved its aims — in the longest war [15 weeks] in its history — even with $40 billion in aid from the United States. It has failed to depopulate the north of Gaza, it has a crumbling economy, and 1 million Israelis [out if 9 million] have left already.”

Wakim said that the resistance and success in defeating Israel’s “deadly objectives” had come at a “terrible cost”.

“We mourn those with families here and in Gaza and now in the West Bank who made  the ultimate sacrifice with their lives — 47,000 people killed, 18,000 of them children, thousands unaccounted for in the rubble and over 100,000 injured.

Grieving for journalists, humanitarian workers
“We grieve for but salute the journalists and the humanitarian workers who have been murdered serving humanity.”


Janfrie Wakim speaking at today’s Palestine rally in Tamaki Makaurau. Video: APR

She said the genocide had been enabled by the wealthiest countries in the world and the Western media — “including our own with few exceptions”.

“Without its lies, its deflections, its failure to report the agonising reality of Palestinians suffering, Israel would not have been able to commit its atrocities,” Wakim said.

“And now while we celebrate the ceasefire there’s been an escalation on the West Bank — air strikes, drones, snipers, ethnic cleansing in Jenin with homes and infrastructure being demolished.

“Checkpoints have doubled to over 900 — sealing off communities. And still the Palestinians resist.

“And we must too. Solidarity. Unity of purpose is all important. Bury egos. Let humanity triumph.”

Palestinian liberation advocate Janfrie Wakim . . . “Without its lies, its deflections, its failure to report the agonising reality of Palestinians suffering, Israel could not have been able to commit its atrocities.” Image: David Robie/APR

90-year-old supporter
During her short speech, Wakim introduced to the crowd the first Palestinian she had met in New Zealand, Ghazi Dassouki, who is now aged 90.

She met him at a Continuing Education seminar at the University of Auckland in 1986 that addressed the topic of “The Palestine Question”. It shocked the establishment of the time with Zionist complaints and intimidation of staff which prevented any similar academic event until 2006.

Wakim called for justice for the Palestinians.

“Freedom from occupation. Liberation from apartheid. And peace at last after 76 years of subjugation and oppression by Israel and its allies,” she said

She called on supporters to listen to what was being suggested for local action — “do what suits your situation and energy. Our task is to persist, as Howard Zinn put it”.

“When we organise with one another, when we get involved, when we stand up and speak out together, we can create a power no government can suppress,” she said.

“We don’t have to engage in grand, heroic actions to participate in the process of change. Small acts, when multiplied by millions of people, can transform the world.”

Introduced to the Auckland protest crowd today . . . Ghazi Dassouki, who is now aged 90.

As a symbol for peace and justice in Palestine, slices of water melon and dates were handed out to the crowd.

Calls to block NZ visits by IDF soldiers
Among many nationwide rallies across Aotearoa New Zealand this weekend, were many calls for the government to suspend entry to the country from soldiers in the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF).

“New Zealand should not be providing rest and recreation for Israeli soldiers fresh from the genocide in Gaza,” said PSNA national chair John Minto.

“We wouldn’t allow Russian soldiers to come here for rest and recreation from the invasion of Ukraine so why would we accept soldiers from the genocidal, apartheid state of Israel?”

As well as the working holiday visa, since 2019 Israelis have been able to enter New Zealand for three months without needing a visa at all.

This visa-waiver is used by Israeli soldiers for “rest and recreation” from the genocide in Gaza.

Minto stressed that IDF soldiers had killed at least 47,000 Palestinians — 70 percent of them women and children.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has declared Israeli actions a “plausible genocide”; Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch have branded the continuous massacres as genocide and extermination; and the latest report from UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Occupied Palestine Territories Francesca Albanese has called it “genocide as colonial erasure”.

Watermelon slices for all . . . a symbol of peace, the seed for justice. Image: David Robie/APR

War crimes red flags
Also, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

“All these red flags for genocide have been visible for months but the government is still giving the green light to those involved in war crimes to enter New Zealand,” Minto said.

Last month, PSNA again wrote to the government asking for the suspension of travel to New Zealand for all Israeli soldiers and reservists.

Meanwhile, 200 Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails have been set free under the terms of the Gaza ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas. Seventy of them will be deported to countries in the region, reports Al Jazeera.

Masses of people have congregated in Ramallah, celebrating the return of the released Palestinian prisoners.

A huge crowd waved Palestinian flags, shouted slogans and captured the joyful scene with their phones and live footage shows.

The release came after Palestinian fighters earlier handed over four female Israeli soldiers who had been held in Gaza to the International Red Cross in Palestine Square.

The smiling and waving soldiers appeared to be in good health and were in high spirits.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Motor neurone disease campaigner, former AFL champion Neale Daniher, is 2025 Australian of the Year

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

Neale Daniher, a campaigner in the fight against motor neurone disease and a former champion Essendon footballer, is the 2025 Australian of the Year,

Himself a sufferer from the deadly disease Daniher, 63, who lives in Victoria, co-founded the charity FightMND, that has raised and invested more than $100 million into research to seek a cure.

Daniher was diagnosed in 2013. “Neale has lived his condition very publicly, even in the advanced stages of the disease,” a statement announcing the award said. He has also defied the usual odds in surviving with the disease for more than a decade when the average life expectancy is 27 months.

“With amazing courage and relentless drive, he’s dedicated his life to helping prevent the suffering of those who’ll be diagnosed in the future.”

Daniher played for Essendon between 1979 and 1990, and at 20 years old was the club’s youngest ever captain. He was senior coach of Melbourne from 1998 to 2007.

He has made appearances at FightMND’s regular Big Freeze event.

The Senior Australian of the Year is Brother Thomas Oliver Pickett, 84, from Western Australia, co-founder of Wheelchairs for Kids in 1996. The charity provides free adjustable wheelchairs and occupational therapy expertise for children in developing countries.

More than 60,000 custom-made wheelchairs have been given to children in more than 80 countries. The charity has more than 250 retired workshop volunteers (with an average age of 74); another more than 550 people sew covers, rugs and soft toys.

“Olly also spearheaded the development of an innovative, low cost wheelchair design to World Health Organisation standards that grows as the children do – a world first,” the announcement said.

The Young Australian of the Year is scientist Katrina Wruck, 30, from Queensland, a Mabuigilaig and Goemulgal woman.

Based on her research she has set up a profit-for-purpose business, Nguki Kula Green Labs “which is poised to transform the consumer goods sector by harnessing the power of green chemistry, while inspiring others to step into STEM.

“Katrina’s method of converting mining by-products to zeolite LTA – which can remove contaminants from water that cause hardness – will be commercialised.”

Local Heroes are Vanessa Brettell, 31, and Hannah Costello, 32, co- founders of Cafe Stepping Stone.

The business, in two locations in the ACT, “operates as a social enterprise, employing women mostly from migrant and refugee backgrounds and others who experience significant barriers to employment”.

Their “inclusive employment practices involve targeting female workers who are the sole income earners in their households, new arrivals to Australia, those with limited English or minimal employment history, and those experiencing homelessness”.

The awards were presented by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in Canberra on Saturday night.

The Conversation

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Motor neurone disease campaigner, former AFL champion Neale Daniher, is 2025 Australian of the Year – https://theconversation.com/motor-neurone-disease-campaigner-former-afl-champion-neale-daniher-is-2025-australian-of-the-year-248302

Peter Dutton’s reshuffle: David Coleman the surprise choice as shadow foreign minister

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

Peter Dutton has chosen a dark horse in naming David Coleman for the key shadow foreign affairs portfolio, in a reshuffle that also seeks to boost the opposition’s credentials with women.

Coleman has been communications spokesman. He led the opposition’s campaign for an age limit on young people’s access to social media – a policy that was later adopted by the government and now has been legislated by the parliament.

He is one of the opposition’s small band of moderates although not seen as a factional player.

Coleman, who holds the Sydney marginal seat of Banks, has done extensive work with Middle East communities and the Chinese community. He is a former minister for immigration, citizenship, migrant services and multicultural affairs.

The foreign affairs job, previously held by Simon Birmingham, who is departing parliament, was keenly sought by a number of frontbenchers. One of the aspirants was deputy Liberal leader Sussan Ley, whose position entitles her to choose her portfolio, at least in theory.

Dutton has also brought Julian Leeser back onto the frontbench, as shadow assistant minister for foreign affairs. Leeser quit the shadow ministry to fight for the yes case in the 2023 Voice referendum.

While his return will be welcomed by many on merit grounds, it also reflects the high profile that Leeser, who is Jewish, has taken in demanding more action against the wave of antiseminism in Australia. Announcing his reshuffle on Saturday, Dutton described Leeser as “a powerhouse of support for Australia’s Jewish community”.

The new shadow cabinet has 11 women, the same number as in the Albanese cabinet.

Melissa McIntosh, from NSW, has been promoted to the shadow cabinet and takes Coleman’s previous job of communications. She stays shadow minister for Western Sydney.

Claire Chandler, from Tasmania and the right, is promoted to shadow cabinet as shadow minister for government services and the digital economy and shadow minister science and the arts. Chandler was in the headlines before the last election for her campaigning against trans women’s access to female sports.

The high profile Jacinta Price receives a promotion. In shades of Elon Musk’s role in the United States, in addition to her current responsibility as shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, she has been given a new role as shadow minister for government efficiency.

Tony Pasin, from South Australia and the right faction, joins the shadow ministry as spokesman on roads and road safety. The government is emphasising its roads program in its campaigning, this month announcing $7.2 billion to upgrade the Bruce Highway.

Matt O’Sullivan, a senator from Western Australia, joins the outer shadow ministry as shadow assistant minister for education.

Ted O’Brien adds energy affordability and reliability to his key role as the opposition’s energy spokesman, in which he is prosecuting the nuclear debate. It has been speculated that the government is likely to do more to give people relief on their power bills.

Kerrynne Liddle adds Indigenous health services to her responsibilities as shadow minister for child protection and the prevention of family violence.

Victorian senator James Paterson, who as home affairs spokesman has been regarded as one of the opposition’s best performers, joins the Coalition leadership group.

Michael Sukkar becomes manager of opposition business in the House of Representatives, the position that has been held by Paul Fletcher, who is retiring at the election.

The Conversation

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Peter Dutton’s reshuffle: David Coleman the surprise choice as shadow foreign minister – https://theconversation.com/peter-duttons-reshuffle-david-coleman-the-surprise-choice-as-shadow-foreign-minister-248303

Vanuatu AG condemns Trump’s Paris climate treaty exit as ‘troubling precedent’

By Harry Pearl of BenarNews

Vanuatu’s top lawyer has called out the United States for “bad behavior” after newly inaugurated President Donald Trump withdrew the world’s biggest historic emitter of greenhouse gasses from the Paris Agreement for a second time.

The Pacific nation’s Attorney-General Arnold Loughman, who led Vanuatu’s landmark International Court of Justice climate case at The Hague last month, said the withdrawal represented an “undeniable setback” for international action on global warming.

“The Paris Agreement remains key to the world’s efforts to combat climate change and respond to its effects, and the participation of major economies like the US is crucial,” he told BenarNews in a statement.

The withdrawal could also set a “troubling precedent” regarding the accountability of rich nations that are disproportionately responsible for global warming, said Loughman.

“At the same time, the US’ bad behavior could inspire resolve on behalf of developed countries to act more responsibly to try and safeguard the international rule of law,” he said.

“Ultimately, the whole world stands to lose if the international legal framework is allowed to erode.”

Vanuatu’s Attorney-General Arnold Loughman at the International Court of Justice last month . . . “The whole world stands to lose if the international legal framework is allowed to erode.” Image: ICJ-CIJ

Trump’s announcement on Monday came less than two weeks after scientists confirmed that 2024 was the hottest year on record and the first in which average temperatures exceeded 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

Agreed to ‘pursue efforts’
Under the Paris Agreement adopted in 2015, leaders agreed to “pursue efforts” to limit warming under the 1.5°C threshold or, failing that, keep rises “well below” 2°C  by the end of the century.

Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka said on Wednesday in a brief comment that Trump’s action would “force us to rethink our position” but the US president must do “what is in the best interest of the United States of America”.

Other Pacific leaders and the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) regional intergovernmental body have not responded to BenarNews requests for comment.

The forum — comprising 18 Pacific states and territories — in its 2018 Boe Declaration said: “Climate change remains the single greatest threat to the livelihoods, security and wellbeing of the peoples of the Pacific and [we reaffirm] our commitment to progress the implementation of the Paris Agreement.”

Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka speaks at the opening of the new Nabouwalu Water Treatment Plant this week . . . Trump’s action would “force us to rethink our position”. Image: Fiji govt

Trump’s executive order sparked dismay and criticism in the Pacific, where the impacts of a warming planet are already being felt in the form of more intense storms and rising seas.

Jacynta Fa’amau, regional Pacific campaigner with environmental group 350 Pacific, said the withdrawal would be a diplomatic setback for the US.

“The climate crisis has for a long time now been our greatest security threat, especially to the Pacific,” she told BenarNews.

A clear signal
“This withdrawal from the agreement is a clear signal about how much the US values the survival of Pacific nations and all communities on the front lines.”

New Zealand’s former Minister for Pacific Peoples, Aupito William Sio, said that if the US withdrew from its traditional leadership roles in multilateral organisations China would fill the gap.

“Some people may not like how China plays its role,” wrote the former Labour MP on Facebook. “But when the great USA withdraws from these global organisations . . . it just means China can now go about providing global leadership.”

Analysts and former White House advisers told BenarNews last year that climate change could be a potential “flashpoint” between Pacific nations and a second Trump administration at a time of heightened geopolitical competition with China.

Trump’s announcement was not unexpected. During his first term he withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement, only for former President Joe Biden to promptly rejoin in 2021.

The latest withdrawal puts the US, the world’s largest historic emitter of greenhouse gases, alongside only Iran, Libya and Yemen outside the climate pact.

In his executive order, Trump said the US would immediately begin withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and from any other commitments made under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

US also ending climate finance
The US would also end its international climate finance programme to developing countries — a blow to small Pacific island states that already struggle to obtain funding for resilience and mitigation.

Press releases by the Biden administration were removed from the White House website immediately after President Donald Trump’s inauguration. Image: White House website/Screen capture on Monday

A fact sheet published by the Biden administration on November 17, which has now been removed from the White House website, said that US international climate finance reached more than US$11 billion in 2024.

Loughman said the cessation of climate finance payments was particularly concerning for the Pacific region.

“These funds are essential for building resilience and supporting adaptation strategies,” he said. “Losing this support could severely hinder ongoing and future projects aimed at protecting our vulnerable ecosystems and communities.”

George Carter, deputy head of the Department of Pacific Affairs at the Australian National University and member of the COP29 Scientific Council, said at the centre of the Biden administration’s re-engagement with the South Pacific was a regional programme on climate adaptation.

“While the majority of climate finance that flows through the Pacific comes from Australia, Japan, European Union, New Zealand — then the United States — the climate networks and knowledge production from the US to the Pacific are substantial,” he said.

Sala George Carter (third from right) hosted a panel discussion at COP29 highlighting key challenges Indigenous communities face from climate change last November. Image: Sera Sefeti/BenarNews

Climate actions plans
Pacific island states, like all other signatories to the Paris Agreement, will this year be submitting Nationally Determined Contributions, or NDCs, outlining their climate action plans for the next five years.

“All climate actions, policies and activities are conditional on international climate finance,” Carter said.

Pacific island nations are being disproportionately affected by climate change despite contributing just 0.02 percent of global emissions, according to a UN report released last year.

Low-lying islands are particularly vulnerable to rising sea levels and extreme weather events like cyclones, floods and marine heatwaves, which are projected to occur more frequently this century as a result of higher average global temperatures.

On January 10, the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) confirmed that last year for the first time the global mean temperature tipped over 1.5°C above the 1850-1900 average.

WMO experts emphasised that a single year of more than 1.5°C does not mean that the world has failed to meet long-term temperature goals, which are measured over decades, but added that “leaders must act — now” to avert negative impacts.

Harry Pearl is a BenarNews journalist. This article was first published by BenarNews and is republished at Asia Pacific Report with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

RNZ Pacific – 35 years of broadcasting trusted news to the region

By Moera Tuilaepa-Taylor, RNZ Pacific manager

RNZ International (RNZI) began broadcasting to the Pacific region 35 years ago — on 24 January 1990, the same day the Auckland Commonwealth Games opened.

Its news bulletins and programmes were carried by a brand new 100kW transmitter.

The service was rebranded as RNZ Pacific in 2017. However its mission remains unchanged, to provide news of the highest quality and be a trusted service to local broadcasters in the Pacific region.

Although RNZ had been broadcasting to the Pacific since 1948, in the late 1980s the New Zealand government saw the benefit of upgrading the service. Thus RNZI was born, with a small dedicated team.

The first RNZI manager was Ian Johnstone. He believed that the service should have a strong cultural connection to the people of the Pacific. To that end, it was important that some of the staff reflected parts of the region where RNZ Pacific broadcasted.

He hired the first Pacific woman sports reporter at RNZ, the late Elma Ma’ua.

Linden Clark (from left) and Ian Johnstone, former managers of RNZ International now known as RNZ Pacific, and Moera Tuilaepa-Taylor, current manager of RNZ Pacific . . . strong cultural connection to the people of the Pacific. Image: RNZ

The Pacific region is one of the most vital areas of the earth, but it is not always the safest, particularly from natural disasters.

Disaster coverage
RNZ Pacific covered events such as the 2009 Samoan tsunami, and during the devastating 2022 Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haʻapai eruption, it was the only news service that could be heard in the kingdom.

More recently, it supported Vanuatu’s public broadcaster during the December 17 earthquake by providing extra bulletin updates for listeners when VBTC services were temporarily out of action.

Cyclones have become more frequent in the region, and RNZ Pacific provides vital weather updates, as the late Linden Clark, RNZI’s second manager, explained: “Many times, we have been broadcasting warnings on analogue shortwave to listeners when their local station has had to go off air or has been forced off air.”

RNZ Pacific’s cyclone watch service continues to operate during the cyclone season in the South Pacific.

As well as natural disasters, the Pacific can also be politically volatile. Since its inception RNZ Pacific has reported on elections and political events in the region.

Some of the more recent events include the 2000 and 2006 coups in Fiji, the Samoan Constitutional Crisis of 2021, the 2006 pro-democracy riots in Nuku’alofa, the revolving door leadership changes in Vanuatu, and the 2022 security agreement that Solomon Islands signed with China.

Human interest, culture
Human interest and cultural stories are also a key part of RNZ Pacific’s programming.

The service regularly covers cultural events and festivals within New Zealand, such as Polyfest. This was part of Linden Clark’s vision, in her role as RNZI manager, that the service would be a link for the Pacific diaspora in New Zealand to their homelands.

Today, RNZ Pacific continues that work. Currently its programmes are carried on two transmitters — one installed in 2008 and a much more modern facility, installed in 2024 following a funding boost.

Around 20 Pacific region radio stations relay RNZP’s material daily. Individual short-wave listeners and internet users around the world tune in directly to RNZ Pacific content which can be received as far away as Japan, North America, the Middle East and Europe.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Fiji solidarity network welcomes Gaza ceasefire but calls for ‘justice, accountability’

Asia Pacific Report

The Fijians for Palestine Solidarity Network (FPSN) and its allies have called for “justice and accountability” over Israel’s 15 months of genocide and war crimes.

The Pacific-based network met in a solidarity gathering last night in the capital Suva hosted by the Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre and issued a statement.

“A moment of reflection . .. for us as we welcome the ceasefire but emphasise that true peace requires justice and accountability for the Palestinian people,” it said.

“There can be no just and lasting peace without full accountability for the war crimes and human rights violations committed against the Palestinian people.”

The temporary ceasefire began last Sunday with an exchange of three Israeli women hostages held by the freedom fighter movement Hamas for 90 Palestinian women and children held by the Israeli military — most of them without charge or trial — and a massive increase in humanitarian aid.

The Fiji solidarity network said the path to peace must address the root causes — “Israel’s ongoing colonisation of Palestine, its apartheid system and illegal occupation that began with the Nakba 77 years ago.”

The network appealed for continued pressure for Palestinian statehood.

“We urge all supporters of justice and human rights to continue to stand up for Palestine and maintain pressure on our government and institutions until Palestine is free,” it said.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

How we treat catchment water to make it safe to drink

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Patrick Taylor, Chief Environmental Scientist, EPA Victoria; Honorary Professor, School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University

Andriana Syvanych/Shutterstock

Most of us are fortunate that, when we turn on the tap, clean, safe and high-quality water comes out.

But a senate inquiry into the presence of PFAS or “forever chemicals” is putting the safety of our drinking water back in the spotlight.

Lidia Thorpe, the independent senator leading the inquiry, says Elders in the Aboriginal community of Wreck Bay in New South Wales are “buying bottled water out of their aged care packages” due to concerns about the health impacts of PFAS in their drinking water.

So, how is water deemed safe to drink in Australia? And why does water quality differ in some areas?

Here’s what happens between a water catchment and your tap.

Human intervention in the water cycle

There is no “new” water on Earth. The water we drink can be up to 4.5 billion years old and is continuously recycled through the hydrological cycle. This transfers water from the ground to the atmosphere through evaporation and back again (for example, through rain).

Humans interfere with this natural cycle by trapping and redirecting water from various sources to use. A lot happens before it reaches your home.

The quality of the water when you turn on the tap depends on a range of factors, including the local geology, what kind of activities happen in catchment areas, and the different treatments used to process it.

Aerial view of a dam next to a forest.
Maroondah dam in Healesville, Victoria.
doublelee/Shutterstock

How do we decide what’s safe?

The Australian Drinking Water Guidelines define what is considered safe, good-quality drinking water.

The guidelines set acceptable water quality values for more than 250 physical, chemical and bacterial contaminants. They take into account any potential health impact of drinking the contaminant over a lifetime as well as aesthetics – the taste and colour of the water.

The guidelines are not mandatory but provide the basis for determining if the quality of water to be supplied to consumers in all parts of Australia is safe to drink. The guidelines undergo rolling revision to ensure they represent the latest scientific evidence.

From water catchment to tap

Australians’ drinking water mainly comes from natural catchments. Sources include surface water, groundwater and seawater (via desalination).

Public access to these areas is typically limited to preserve optimal water quality.

Filtration and purification of water occurs naturally in catchments as it passes through soil, sediments, rocks and vegetation.

But catchment water is subject to further treatment via standard processes that typically focus on:

  • removing particulates (for example, soil and sediment)

  • filtration (to remove particles and their contaminants)

  • disinfection (for example, using chlorine and chloramine to kill bacteria and viruses)

  • adding fluoride to prevent tooth decay

  • adjusting pH to balance the chemistry of the water and to aid filtration.

This water is delivered to our taps via a reticulated system – a network of underground reservoirs, pipes, pumps and fittings.

In areas where there is no reticulated system, drinking water can also be sourced from rainwater tanks. This means the quality of drinking water can vary.

Sources of contamination can come from roof catchments feeding rainwater tanks as well from the tap due to lead in plumbing fittings and materials.

So, does all water meet these standards?

Some rural and remote areas, especially First Nations communities, rely on poor-quality surface water and groundwater
for their drinking water.

Rural and regional water can exceed recommended guidelines for salt, microbial contaminants and trace elements, such as lead, manganese and arsenic.

The federal government and other agencies are trying to address this.

There are many impacts of poor regional water quality. These include its implication in elevated rates of tooth decay in First Nations people. This occurs when access to chilled, sugary drinks is cheaper and easier than access to good quality water.

What about PFAS?

There is also renewed concern about the presence of PFAS or “forever” chemicals in drinking water.

Recent research examining the toxicity of PFAS chemicals along with their presence in some drinking water catchments in Australia and overseas has prompted a recent assessment of water source contamination.

A review by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) proposed lowering the limits for four PFAS chemicals in drinking water: PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS and PFBS.

The review used publicly available data and found most drinking water supplies are currently below the proposed new guideline values for PFAS.

However, “hotspots” of PFAS remain where drinking water catchments or other sources (for example, groundwater) have been impacted by activities where PFAS has been used in industrial applications. And some communities have voiced concerns about an association between elevated PFAS levels in their communities and cancer clusters.

While some PFAS has been identified as carcinogenic, it’s not certain that PFAS causes cancer. The link is still being debated.

Importantly, assessment of exposure levels from all sources in the population shows PFAS levels are falling meaning any exposure risk has also reduced over time.

How about removing PFAS from water?

Most sources of drinking water are not associated with industrial contaminants like PFAS. So water sources are generally not subject to expensive treatment processes, like reverse osmosis, that can remove most waterborne pollutants, including PFAS. These treatments are energy-intensive and expensive and based on recent water quality assessments by the NHMRC will not be needed.

While contaminants are everywhere, it is the dose that makes the poison. Ultra-low concentrations of chemicals including PFAS, while not desirable, may not be harmful and total removal is not warranted.

The Conversation

Mark Patrick Taylor is a full-time employee of EPA Victoria, appointed to the statutory role of Chief Environmental Scientist. He is also an Honorary Professor at Macquarie University. EPA Victoria has previously received funding from the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action and Victorian water authorities to understand the presence of contaminants waste water. He has previously received funding from the Australian Government, ARC and other government agencies for environmental pollution research.

Antti Mikkonen is a full-time employee of EPA Victoria, in the role of Principal Health Risk Advisor for chemicals. Antti has previously received funding from the Australian Government Department of Education for research to understand PFAS bioaccumulation in livestock and models for risk management.

Minna Saaristo is a full-time employee of EPA Victoria, appointed to the role of Principal Scientist – Ecological Risk and Emerging contaminants. She is affiliate of the School of Biological Sciences at Monash University. EPA Victoria has previously received funding from the Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action and Victorian water authorities to understand the presence of emerging contaminants in recycled water. She has previously received funding from the Australian Government, ARC and other government agencies for environmental pollution research.

ref. How we treat catchment water to make it safe to drink – https://theconversation.com/how-we-treat-catchment-water-to-make-it-safe-to-drink-242206

Trump has called time on working from home. Here’s why the world shouldn’t mindlessly follow

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julia Richardson, Professor of Human Resource Management, Head of School of Management, Curtin University

Gorodenkoff/Shutterstock

US President Donald Trump has called time on working from home. An executive order signed on the first day of his presidency this week requires all federal government departments and agencies to:

take all necessary steps to terminate remote work arrangements and require employees to return to work in-person.

There are a few different models of working from home. Strictly speaking, remote work is where employees work from an alternative location (typically their home) on a permanent basis and are not required to report to their office.

This is distinct from “telework”, a hybrid model whereby employees work from home an agreed number of days each week. But it’s clear Trump wants to end telework too.

Under guidelines released on Wednesday, federal agencies were given until 5pm local time on 24 January to update their telework policies to require all employees back in the office full-time within 30 days.

Obviously, Trump can’t end working from home for everyone. Private organisations are allowed to set their own policies. But the US government is a seriously big employer, with more than 3 million employees.

According to the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), about 10% of federal workers are fully remote. The impact of this order will be far-reaching.

Trump abruptly pulls the rug

The work-from-home movement was a profound global shift, brought on by the COVID pandemic. We’ve been living with it for five years.

Federal workers who have been working remotely for an extended period are likely to have made significant life decisions based on their flexible working arrangements.

Flexible working arrangements have been mainstream for years, influencing key life decisions for many people.
Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock

It may have influenced where they bought a house, what school their children attend, and what their spouse or partner does for work.

Trump’s order is likely to have a dramatic ripple effect on workers’ families and other life arrangements and responsibilities.

True, federal heads of department and managers and supervisors will be allowed to make some exceptions – including for a disability, medical condition or other “compelling reason”.

But the message is clear. What has been a growing but informal trend among some employers worldwide to “bring employees back into the office” is now being incorporated into US government policy.

Why the backlash?

Trump’s executive order reflects longstanding concerns among some employers and managers who think it is simply better to have employees in the office.

They argue, among other things, that in-office work makes it easier to keep a close eye on performance, and supports more face-to-face collaboration. It also makes better use of often very expensive real estate.

Amazon recently ordered all of its staff back into the office five days a week. Other surveys suggest many employers are planning a crackdown this year.

City planners and businesses have also lamented the impact of remote and flexible working on restaurants, dry cleaners and coffee shops that rely on trade from commuters.

What might be lost?

Some employees may actually welcome the return to the office, particularly those who prefer more social interaction and want to make themselves more visible.

Visibility is often linked with more promotion and career development opportunities.

Others will find the change jarring, and may lose a range of benefits they’ve grown used to.

A 2023 report by policy think tank EconPol Europe found working from home had become most prevalent in English-speaking countries.

It suggested strong support, saying:

the majority of workers highly value the opportunity to work from home for a portion of their work week, with some placing significant importance on it.

Many also wanted to work more days from home than their employers were willing to allow.

A recent analysis by the Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA) found that working from home had significantly increased workforce participation for two key groups: working mums and people with a disability or health condition.

Many employees now prioritise flexible work arrangements, and some are willing to sacrifice part of their salary for the privilege.

Work-from-home arrangements also offer individuals living in remote communities access to employment. That benefit goes two ways, allowing employers to tap into a bigger talent pool.

Will Australia follow?

Trump’s executive order could have big, immediate impacts on federal workers in the US, but it’s unclear whether there’ll be domino effects here. It would be unwise for the Australian government or major employers to adopt a blanket approach.

Indeed, some multinational US firms with offices in Australia may get caught up in Trump’s return-to-office movement.

In the short term, this forced change is unlikely to make its way to Australia. While social trends do travel between regions, each country has its own employment laws, customs and trends.

Researchers have shown it can be difficult, and in some cases impossible, to transfer human resource practices between countries
and across cultures.

Australia’s geography may be a factor on remote work’s side. A complete ban would immediately have a negative impact on employment opportunities for talented workers in the regions.

The key message for Australian employers and policy-makers is that the benefits of remote work aren’t just for employees.

It can enhance an organisation’s performance, widening the talent pool to include not only those who live far away from the office, but also talented workers who may otherwise be excluded.

Julia Richardson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Trump has called time on working from home. Here’s why the world shouldn’t mindlessly follow – https://theconversation.com/trump-has-called-time-on-working-from-home-heres-why-the-world-shouldnt-mindlessly-follow-248036

Luxon goes all out for growth in mining and tourism – we should be careful what he wishes for

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Glenn Banks, Professor of Geography, School of People, Environment and Planning, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University

Getty Images

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon’s state-of-the-nation address yesterday focused on growth above all else. We shouldn’t rush to judgement, but at least one prominent financial commentator has concluded the maths behind the goals “just doesn’t add up”.

Luxon specified mining and tourism among a number of sectors where the government was anticipating and facilitating growth. Having researched these sectors across the Pacific and Aotearoa New Zealand for more than 30 years, we would echo a cautionary approach.

There is certainly scope for more activity in both sectors. But there also needs to be a dose of realism about what they can deliver, and recognition of the significant risks associated with focusing solely on growth.

NZ is not Australia

Luxon wants to see mining “play a much bigger role in the New Zealand economy”, comparing the local sector with the “much higher incomes” generated in places such as Australia. If we wanted these, he suggested, we need to be aware it is “mining that pays” them.

But it is simplistic to compare domestic mining’s potential to the industry in Australia, which exports more than 400 times as much mineral wealth as New Zealand.

In addition, mineral wealth does not necessarily translate into significant increases in local or even national wealth. This is especially relevant when the local sector is dependent on foreign investment, high levels of imports and offshore expertise for construction and operations, highly volatile commodity prices and generous taxation regimes.

Luxon cited Taranaki and the West Coast as potential areas where mining could deliver “higher incomes, support for local business and families, and more investment in local infrastructure”.

This echoes Regional Development Minister Shane Jones’ linking of mining and regional development. But it flies in the face of historical trends and empirical evidence.

The West Coast has seen the longest continuous presence of large- and small-scale gold and coal mining (for well over a century). And yet the region consistently scores among the worst for socioeconomic deprivation. Mining itself does not create regional development.

The ‘critical minerals’ cloak

The prime minister also gave a nod to the minerals “critical for our climate transition”.

While it’s true that “EVs, solar panels and data centres aren’t made out of thin air”, they are also not made in any significant way with the minerals we currently or might potentially mine (aside from some antimony, possibly).

The “critical minerals” argument risks being a cloak for justifying more mining of coal and gold.

So, even leaving aside the very real (though unacknowledged by Luxon) environmental risks, mining will not be the panacea the government suggests, and certainly not in the short term.

New Zealand does need mining, of course. Aggregates for roads and construction are the most obvious “critical mineral”. But the country also deserves a 21st-century sector that is environmentally responsible and transparent, and which generates real returns for communities and the national economy.

The tourist trap

Echoing Finance Minister Nicola Willis’ speech earlier in the week, Luxon also said “tourism has a massive role to play in our growth story”.

Willis said, “We want all tourists.” But this broad focus on high-volume tourism goes against international best practice in tourism development.

The negative impacts of a high-growth tourism model have been well documented in New Zealand. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s 2019 report – titled “Pristine, popular … imperilled?” – warned of the environmental damage that would be caused by pursuing this approach.

Mayors and tourism industry officials have responded to the Willis and Luxon speeches this week by expressing concern that boosting tourism numbers will only work if there is more government funding.

This is needed to manage growth and provide infrastructure, particularly in areas with low numbers of ratepayers. The need stretches from providing public toilets for busloads of tourists flowing through MacKenzie District, to maintaining popular tracks such as the West Coast Wilderness Trail.

A 2024 report from Tourism New Zealand showed 68% of residents experienced negative impacts from tourism, including increased traffic congestion and rubbish.

Further expansion could see tourism losing its social licence – a dire outcome when international tourists particularly value the “warm and welcoming” nature of locals.

High value vs high volume

Luxon and Willis point to major employment wins from tourism growth. But tourism is notorious for creating low-income, insecure jobs. This is not the basis for strong and sustainable economic development.

While we agree with Luxon that our tourism industry is “world class”, we risk seriously damaging that reputation if we compromise the quality of experience for visitors.

Post-COVID, there have been significant efforts by the tourism industry to support and implement a regenerative approach. This aligns with a high-value – or “high values” – approach, rather than being fixated on high volume.

We are not arguing against mining or tourism per se. Rather, we are sounding a caution: they are sectors that need careful assessment and regulation, and reputable operators, to deliver sustainable and equitable growth, regionally and nationally.

Simply generating profits for foreign investors and leaving local communities to deal with the costs cannot be a sustainable model.

The Conversation

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Luxon goes all out for growth in mining and tourism – we should be careful what he wishes for – https://theconversation.com/luxon-goes-all-out-for-growth-in-mining-and-tourism-we-should-be-careful-what-he-wishes-for-248131

‘Entire Pacific region at risk’, says UNAIDS on Fiji HIV outbreak

RNZ Pacific

Fiji’s Minister for Health and Medical Services has declared an HIV outbreak.

Dr Ratu Atonio Rabici Lalabalavu announced 1093 new HIV cases from the period of January to September 2024.

“This declaration reflects the alarming reality that HIV is evolving faster than our current services can cater for,” he said.

“We need the support of every Fijian. Communities, civil society, faith-based organizations, private sector partners, and international allies must join us in raising awareness, reducing stigma, and ensuring everyone affected by HIV receives the care and support they need.”

In early December, the Fiji Medical Association called on the government to declare an HIV outbreak “as a matter of priority”.

As of mid-December, 19 under-fives were diagnosed with HIV in Fiji.

The UN Development Programme has recently delivered 3000 antiretroviral drugs to Fiji to support the HIV response.

World’s largest epidemic
A report released in mid-2024 showed that in 2023, 6.7 million people living with HIV were residing in Asia and the Pacific, making it the world’s largest epidemic after eastern and southern Africa.

“Among countries with available data, HIV epidemics are growing in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Fiji, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Papua New Guinea and the Philippines,” the report said.

The regional director of UNAIDS Asia Pacific Eamonn Murphy said rising new infections in Fiji “put the entire Pacific region at risk”.

“Prioritisation of HIV by the government is critical for not only the people of Fiji, but the entire Pacific,” he said.

“Political will is the essential first step. There must also be community leadership and regional solidarity to ensure these strategies work.”

UNAIDS said the 1093 cases from January to September was three times as many as there were in 2023.

Preliminary Ministry of Health numbers show that among the newly-diagnosed individuals who are currently receiving antiretroviral therapy, half contracted HIV through injecting drug use. Over half of all people living with HIV who are aware of their status are not on treatment.

Second-fastest growth
“Fiji has the second fastest growing HIV epidemic in the Asia and the Pacific region,” Murphy said.

He said the data does not just tell the story about a lack of services, but it indicates that even when people know they are HIV-positive, they are fearful to receive care.

“There must be a deliberate effort to not only strengthen health systems, but to respond to the unique needs of the most affected populations, including people who use drugs.

“Perpetuating prejudice against any group will only slow progress.”

UNAIDS also said the HIV Outbreak Response Plan called for a combination of prevention approaches.

Since the sexual transmission of HIV remains a significant factor, other key approaches are condom distribution and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), a treatment taken by an HIV-negative person to reduce the risk of contracting HIV if they are exposed.

UNAIDS support
Through the Australian government’s Indo-Pacific HIV Partnership, UNAIDS is supporting Fiji to scale up prevention approaches.

United Nations Resident Coordinator in Fiji Dirk Wagener said the outbreak declaration and the launch of high-impact interventions, such as needle syringe programmes and PrEP, marked a critical turning point in Fiji’s efforts to combat the epidemic.

“The Joint UN Team on HIV, with UNAIDS as its secretariat, stands ready to provide coordinated and sustained support to ensure the success of these strategies and to protect the most vulnerable.”

The HIV Surge Strategy includes tactics for Fiji to achieve the Global AIDS Strategy targets — 95 percent of all people living with HIV aware their status, 95 percent of diagnosed people on antiretroviral therapy, and 95 percent of people on treatment achieving a suppressed viral load.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

China has invested billions in ports around the world. This is why the West is so concerned

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Claudio Bozzi, Lecturer in Law, Deakin University

Shutterstock

On his way to the G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro in November, Chinese President Xi Jinping met with Peruvian President Dina Boluarte to officially open a new US$3.6 billion (A$5.8 billion) deepwater mega-port in Peru called Chancay.

China’s state-owned Cosco shipping giant had purchased a 60% stake in the port for US$1.6 billion (A$2.6 billion), which gave the company exclusive use of the port for 60 years.

Days later, the first ship departed for Shanghai loaded with blueberries, avocados and minerals.

Chancay is part of China’s vision of a 21st century maritime Silk Road that will better connect China’s manufacturing hubs with its trading partners around the world. This has involved a heavy investment in ports in many countries, which has the West concerned about China’s expanding influence over global shipping routes.

Newly re-elected US President Donald Trump made clear these concerns when he claimed China was “operating” the Panama Canal and the US intended to take it back.

China does not operate the canal, though. Rather, a Hong Kong company operates two ports on either side of it.

A booming port expansion

The scale and scope of the maritime Silk Road is impressive. China has invested in 129 ports in dozens of countries through its state-owned enterprises, mostly in the Global South. Seventeen of these ports have majority-Chinese ownership.

According to one estimate, Chinese companies invested US$11 billion (A$17.7 billion) in overseas port development from 2010–19. More than 27% of global container trade now passes through terminals where leading Chinese firms hold direct stakes.

China has entered Latin America aggressively, becoming the region’s top trading partner. Its port strategy has clearly signalled a long-term goal to access the exports essential to its food and energy security: soybeans, corn, beef, iron ore, copper and battery-grade lithium.

Last year, for example, Portos do Paraná, the Brazilian state-owned enterprise that acts as the port authority in the state of Paraná, signed a letter of intent with China Merchants Port Holdings to expand Paranaguá Container Terminal, the second-largest terminal in South America. China may invest in even more Brazilian ports, as 22 terminals are scheduled to be auctioned before the end of 2025.

In Africa, Chinese investment grew from two ports in 2000 to 61 facilities in 30 countries by 2022.

And in Europe, Chinese enterprises have complete or majority ownership of two key ports in Belgium and Greece – the so-called “dragon’s head” of the Belt and Road Initiative in Europe.

What’s driving this port strategy?

China’s emergence as a maritime and shipping power is central to Xi’s ambition for global economic dominance.

For one, China requires stable access to key trading routes to continue meeting the demand for Chinese exports globally, as well as the imports Beijing needs to keep its economy humming.

Controlling ports also enables China to create economic zones in other countries that give port owners and operators privileged access to commodities and products. Some fear this could allow China to disrupt supplies of certain goods or even exert influence over other countries’ politics or economies.

Another key driver of this strategy is the metals and minerals needed to fuel China’s rise as a tech superpower. Beijing has concentrated its port investment in regions where these critical resources are located.

For example, China is the world’s largest importer of copper ore, mainly from Chile, Peru and Mexico. It is also one of the world’s major lithium carbonate importers.), mainly from Chile and Argentina. And its port deals in Africa give it access to rare earths and other minerals.

In addition, tapping into Latin America counteracts the trade tensions China has experienced recently with Europe. It also preempts concerns about possible US tariffs imposed on Chinese goods by Trump.

Military concerns

These moves have prompted concern in Washington that China is challenging US influence in its own backyard.

China maintains that its seaport diplomacy is market oriented. However, it has established one naval base in the strategically located African nation of Djibouti. And it is believed to be building another naval base in Equatorial Guinea.

According to a recent report by the Asia Society Policy Institute, strategy analysts believe China is seeking to “weaponise” the Belt and Road Initiative.

One way it is doing this is by requiring the commercial ports it invests in to be equally capable of acting as naval bases. So far, 14 of the 17 ports in which it has a majority stake have the potential to be used for naval purposes. These ports can then serve a dual function and support the Chinese military’s logistics network and allow Chinese naval vessels to operate further away from home.

US officials are also concerned China could leverage its influence over private companies to disrupt trade during a time of war.

How is the West responding?

While China’s investments are raising suspicions, the West’s willingness to invest in ports at this scale is limited. The US International Development Finance Corporation, for instance, has a much slower, rigorous process for its investments, which generally leads to fairer outcomes for both investors and host nations.

However, some Western companies are acquiring stakes in established and newly built ports in other countries, albeit not to the extent of Chinese enterprises.

The French shipping and logistics company CMA CGM’s global port development strategy, for example, includes investments in 60 terminals worldwide. In 2024, it acquired control over South America’s largest container terminal in the Port of Santos, Brazil.

Trump has threatened tariffs as one way of countering China’s global sea power. An advisor on his transition team has proposed a 60% tariff on any product transiting through the Chancay port in Peru or any other Chinese-owned or controlled port in South America.

Rather than making nations reluctant to sign port deals with Beijing, however, this kind of action just erodes Washington’s regional influence. And China is likely to take retaliatory measures, like banning the export of critical minerals to the US.

Host nations like Peru and Brazil, meanwhile, are using the competition for port investment to their advantage. Attracting interest from both the West and China, they are increasingly asserting their autonomy and adopting a strategy of using ports to “play everywhere” on the global stage.

The Conversation

Claudio Bozzi does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. China has invested billions in ports around the world. This is why the West is so concerned – https://theconversation.com/china-has-invested-billions-in-ports-around-the-world-this-is-why-the-west-is-so-concerned-244733

Trump has fired a major cyber security investigations body. It’s a risky move

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Toby Murray, Professor of Cybersecurity, School of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne

Before the end of its first full day of operations, the new Trump administration gutted all advisory panels for the Department of Homeland Security. Among these was the well-respected Cyber Safety Review Board, or CSRB.

While this change hasn’t received as much notice as Trump’s massive announcement about AI, it has potentially significant implications for cyber security. The CSRB is an important source of information for governments and businesses trying to protect themselves from cyber threats.

This change also throws into doubt the board’s current activities. These include an ongoing investigation into the Salt Typhoon cyber attacks which began as early as 2022 and are still keeping cyber defenders busy, attributed to hackers in China.

Salt Typhoon has been described as the “worst telecommunications hack” in US history. Among other activities, the hackers obtained call records data made by high-profile individuals and even the contents of phone calls and text messages. The phones of then presidential nominee Donald Trump were reportedly among those targeted.

What does the Cyber Safety Review Board do?

The board was established three years ago by the Biden administration. Roughly speaking, its job is the cyberspace equivalent of government air traffic investigation bodies such as the US National Transportation Safety Board, or the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.

The CSRB investigates major cyber security incidents. Its job is to determine their causes and recommend ways government and businesses can better protect themselves, including on how to prevent similar incidents in future.

Its members include global cyber security luminaries from industry, such as cyber executives from Google and Microsoft, and US government leaders from several departments and agencies concerned with security.

The US CSRB has previously published three major reports. Its first covered the infamous 2021 Log4j vulnerability, described at the time as the “single biggest, most critical vulnerability ever”. (A vulnerability is a weakness in a computer system that cyber criminals can exploit.)

The board’s most recent published investigation involved a very sophisticated hacking campaign that targeted Microsoft’s cloud email services in 2023. As a result, hackers even gained access to the emails of various US government agencies.

Cyber security experts widely consider the CSRB as a positive thing. Late last year, Australia even committed to establish its own version, the Cyber Incident Review Board.

At the time of writing, it’s unclear whether the CSRB will continue – perhaps with different membership – or whether its activities will cease entirely.

Either way, the decision to fire the board’s members has significant security implications. It comes at a moment in history when cyber threats have never been more severe.

What is Salt Typhoon?

The CSRB has been investigating the Salt Typhoon hacking campaign. Salt Typhoon is the name Microsoft assigned to a sophisticated group of hackers believed to be operated by China’s Ministry of State Security. The ministry is somewhat like a combination of an intelligence agency and a secret police service.

Salt Typhoon is best known for hacking into several US telecommunication companies, first reported in August 2024. In December, it came to light Salt Typhoon’s telco hacks may also have impacted countries beyond the US. American, Australian, Canadian and New Zealand authorities also jointly issued public guidance to organisations to help defend against Salt Typhoon.

Salt Typhoon reportedly targeted prominent figures, including political leaders. The hackers’ goal appears to have been to collect intelligence, rather than cause damage.

For example, it has been reported Salt Typhoon collected a list of all phone calls made near Washington DC, which could help them determine who was talking to whom in the US capital.

Salt Typhoon also reportedly obtained a list of phone numbers wiretapped by the US Justice Department. This confirmed the fears of many people opposed to the government’s powers to lawfully wiretap citizens’ phones.

It is unclear why the hackers obtained that information. Some have speculated it would identify which of their own operatives were being monitored by US law enforcement.

To say the Salt Typhoon revelations created waves in government and cyber security circles is putting it mildly. Telecommunications are critical infrastructure, as well as highly valuable targets for intelligence collection.

The idea that foreign spies could burrow so deeply into the communication fabric of the US was unprecedented and disturbing.

In October 2024 the CSRB was tasked with investigating Salt Typhoon’s activities.

An uncertain future

With the board now fired, the future of the Salt Typhoon investigation remains unclear.

A thorough and impartial investigation of the Salt Typhoon hacks, had it been allowed to run, was likely to have delivered highly valuable cyber security lessons. Those lessons are important for both US companies and those in Australia, which have also been the targets of Chinese intelligence collection.

The future of the CSRB itself is now also in question. The board and its overseas equivalents serve a vital role in promoting cyber information-sharing that helps to improve best practices.

It is imperative these bodies are staffed with a diverse collection of impartial experts, able to carry out their work free from government and corporate interference.

It remains to be seen whether dissolving the current CSRB will be a gift to Chinese hackers (as some have claimed), or simply a speed bump in the evolution of the board.

The Conversation

Toby Murray is the Director of the Defence Science Institute, which receives Commonwealth and State government funding. Toby receives research funding from the Australian government and has previously received funding from the US Department of Defense, Facebook and Google.

ref. Trump has fired a major cyber security investigations body. It’s a risky move – https://theconversation.com/trump-has-fired-a-major-cyber-security-investigations-body-its-a-risky-move-248106

Al Jazeera says correspondent’s arrest latest bid to gag Jenin coverage

Pacific Media Watch

The Al Jazeera Network has condemned the arrest of its occupied West Bank correspondent by Palestinian security services as a bid by the Israeli occupation to “block media coverage” of the military attack on Jenin.

Israeli soldiers have killed at least 12 Palestinians in the three-day military assault that has rendered the refugee camp “nearly uninhabitable” and forced displacement of more than 2000 people. Qatar’s Foreign Ministry said the Jenin operation was a “flagrant violation of international humanitarian law and human rights”.

Al Jazeera said in a broadcast statement that the arrest of its occupied West Bank correspondent Muhammad al-Atrash by the Palestinian Authority (PA) could only be explained as “an attempt to block the media coverage of the occupation’s attack in Jenin”.

“The arbitrary actions of the Palestinian Authority are unfortunately identical to the occupation’s targeting of the Al Jazeera Network,” it said.

“We value the positions and voices that stand in solidarity and defend colleague Muhammad al-Atrash and the freedom of the press.”

The network said the journalist was brought before a court in Hebron after being arrested yesterday while covering the events in Jenin “simply for doing his professional duty as a journalist”.

“We confirm that these practices will not hinder our ongoing professional coverage of the facts unfolding in the West Bank,” Al Jazeera’s statement added.

The Israeli occupation has been targeting Al Jazeera for months in an attempt to gag its reporting.

Calling for al-Atrash’s immediate release, the al-Haq organisation (Protecting and Promoting Human Rights & the Rule of Law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory) said in a statement: “Freedom of opinion and expression cannot be guaranteed without ensuring freedom of the press.”

Rage over AJ ban
Earlier this month journalists expressed outrage and confusion about the PA’s decision to shut down the Al Jazeera office in the occupied West Bank after the Israeli government had earlier banned the Al Jazeera broadcasting network’s operation within Israel.

“Shutting down a major outlet like Al Jazeera is a crime against journalism,” said freelance journalist Ikhlas al-Qarnawi.

Also earlier this month, award-winning Palestinian journalist Daoud Kuttab criticised the Israeli government for targeting journalists and attempting to “cover up” the assassination of five Palestinian journalists last month.

He said a December 26 press statement by the Israeli army attempted to “justify a war crime”.

“It unabashedly admitted that the military incinerated five Palestinian journalists in a clearly marked press vehicle outside al-Awda Hospital in the Nuseirat refugee camp, central Gaza Strip,” Kuttab said in an op-ed article.

Many Western publications had quoted the Israeli army statement as if it was an objective position and “not propaganda whitewashing a war crime”, he wrote.

“They failed to clarify to their audiences that attacking journalists, including journalists who may be accused of promoting ‘propaganda’, is a war crime — all journalists are protected under international humanitarian law, regardless of whether armies like their reporting or not.”

Israel not only refuses to recognise any Palestinian media worker as being protected, but it also bars foreign journalists from entering Gaza.

“It has been truly disturbing that the international media has done little to protest this ban,” wrote Kuttab.

“Except for one petition signed by 60 media outlets over the summer, the international media has not followed up consistently on such demands over 15 months.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Support for changing date of Australia Day softens, but remains strong among young people: new research

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Lowe, Chair in Contemporary History, Deakin University

After many years of heated debate over whether January 26 is an appropriate date to celebrate Australia Day – with some councils and other groups shifting away from it – the tide appears to be turning among some groups.

Some local councils, such as Geelong in Victoria, are reversing recent policy and embracing January 26 as a day to celebrate with nationalistic zeal. They are likely emboldened by what they perceive as an ideological shift occurring more generally in Australia and around the world.

But what of young people? Are young Australians really becoming more conservative and nationalistic, as some are claiming? For example, the Institute for Public Affairs states that “despite relentless indoctrination taking place at schools and universities”, their recent survey showed a 10% increase in the proportion of 18-24 year olds who wanted to celebrate Australia Day.

However, the best evidence suggests that claims of a shift towards conservatism among young people are unsupported.

The statement “we should not celebrate Australia Day on January 26” was featured in the Deakin Contemporary History Survey in 2021, 2023, and 2024. Respondents were asked to indicate their agreement level. The Deakin survey is a repeated cross-sectional study conducted using the Life in Australia panel, managed by the Social Research Centre. This is a nationally representative online probability panel with more than 2,000 respondents for each Deakin survey. With its large number of participants, weighting and probability selection, the Life in Australia panel is arguably Australia’s most reliable and robust social survey.

The Deakin Contemporary History Survey consists of several questions about the role of history in contemporary society, hence our interest in whether or how Australians might want to celebrate a national day.

Since 1938, when Aboriginal leaders first declared January 26 a “Day of Mourning”, attitudes to this day have reflected how people in Australia see the nation’s history, particularly about the historical and contemporary dispossession and oppression of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

In 2023, we found support for Australia Day on January 26 declined slightly from 2021, and wondered if a more significant change in community sentiment was afoot. With the addition of the 2024 data, we find that public opinion is solidifying – less a volatile “culture war” and more a set of established positions. Here is what we found:



This figure shows that agreement (combining “strongly agree” and “agree”) with not celebrating Australia Day on January 26 slightly increased in 2023, but returned to the earlier level a year later.

Likewise, disagreement with the statement (again, combining “strongly disagree” and “disagree”) slightly dipped in 2023, but in 2024 returned to levels observed in 2021. “Don’t know” and “refused” responses have consistently remained below 3% across all three years. Almost every Australian has a position on when we should celebrate Australia Day, if at all.

The 2023 dip might reflect a slight shift in public opinion or be due to statistical factors, such as sampling variability. Either way, public sentiment on this issue seems established. As Gunai/Kurnai, Gunditjmara, Wiradjuri and Yorta Yorta writer Nayuka Gorrie and Amangu Yamatji woman Associate Professor Crystal McKinnon have written, the decline in support for Australia Day is the result of decades of activism by Indigenous people.

Though conservative voices have become louder since the failure of the Voice Referendum in 2023, more than 40% of the population now believes Australia Day should not be celebrated on January 26.

In addition, the claim of a significant swing towards Australia Day among younger Australians is unsupported. In 2024, as in earlier iterations of our survey, we found younger Australians (18–34) were more likely to agree that Australia Day should not be celebrated on January 26. More than half of respondents in that age group (53%) supported that change, compared to 39% of 35–54-year-olds, 33% of 55–74-year-olds, and 29% of those aged 75 and older.

Conversely, disagreement increases with age. We found 69% of those aged 75 and older disagreed, followed by 66% of 55–74-year-olds, 59% of 35–54-year-olds, and 43% of 18–34-year-olds. These trends suggest a steady shift, indicating that an overall majority may favour change within the next two decades.

What might become of Australia Day? We asked those who thought we should not celebrate Australia Day on January 26 what alternative they preferred the most.



Among those who do not want to celebrate Australia Day on January 26, 36% prefer replacing it with a new national day on a different date, while 32% favour keeping the name but moving it to a different date. A further 13% support keeping January 26 but renaming it to reflect diverse history, and 8% advocate abolishing any national day entirely. Another 10% didn’t want these options, and less than 1% were unsure.

If the big picture suggests a lack of clarity – with nearly 58 % of the population wanting to keep Australia Day as it is, but 53 % of younger Australians supporting change – then the task of finding possible alternatives to the status quo seems even more clouded.

Gorrie and McKinnon point to the bigger issues at stake for Indigenous people: treaties, land back, deaths in custody, climate justice, reparations and the state removal of Aboriginal children. Yet, as our research continues to show, there are few without opinions on this question, and we should not expect it to recede as an issue the animates Australians.

The Conversation

David Lowe receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.

Andrew Singleton currently receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Joanna Cruickshank receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

ref. Support for changing date of Australia Day softens, but remains strong among young people: new research – https://theconversation.com/support-for-changing-date-of-australia-day-softens-but-remains-strong-among-young-people-new-research-247571

The world’s second largest freshwater crayfish was once plentiful in Australia’s longest river – we’re bringing it back

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nick Whiterod, Science Program Manager, Goyder Institute for Water Research Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth Research Centre, University of Adelaide

Nick Whiterod

Murray crayfish once thrived in the southern Murray-Darling Basin. The species was found everywhere from the headwaters of the Murray and Murrumbidgee Rivers in the Australian Alps all the way down to Wellington in South Australia.

For thousands of years, First Nations people managed harvesting sustainably. But crayfish stocks crashed after European settlement. This was partly due to commercial and recreational harvest, which began in the late 1860s. At its peak in 1955, 15 tonnes of Murray crayfish were taken from the river in New South Wales and sent to markets in Melbourne and Sydney.

In South Australia, the commercial fishery was unsustainable by the 1960s and the species was no longer targeted. In the 1980s, Murray crayfish became a protected species in the state. But the damage was done.

Over-harvesting was not the only problem. Murray crayfish prefer free-flowing, oxygen-rich water, so they suffered from efforts to regulate river flows using dams and weirs. Poor water quality, including pollution from pesticides and other agricultural chemicals, made matters worse.

Murray crayfish disappeared from South Australia sometime in the past 40 years. Targeted surveys over a five-year period couldn’t find them anywhere in the state.

But that all changed in the winter of 2023 when our reintroduction program began. Now we’re preparing for the third release of crayfish and there are positive signs many crays from earlier releases are still going strong.

A species in need of support

Like many species from the highly threatened Euastacus genus, Murray crayfish grow slowly. It takes almost ten years for a female to reach sexual maturity, and she only produces a small number of eggs. Dispersal is also limited. This makes it hard for the population to recover in both number and range.

Following a recent assessment, the species Euastacus armatus is expected to soon be listed as vulnerable to extinction under Australia’s conservation laws.

Conservation actions such as reintroductions will be necessary to aid recovery of the species.



A long time coming, shaped by adversity

The idea of returning Murray crayfish to the river in South Australia is not new.

Two University of Adelaide ecologists, the late Keith Walker and Mike Geddes, first suggested it in the 1990s. They even conducted trials involving crayfish in cages to show sections of the river would be suitable for the species.

Then in 2007, the reintroduction idea was floated again. It was one of the main recommendations in a report identifying gaps in knowledge of the species.

But the idea really gathered momentum after disaster struck. Widespread flooding across the southern Murray-Darling Basin in 2010–11 led to a “hypoxic blackwater” event. This is where leaf litter and debris from the floodplain wash into the river, depleting levels of oxygen and causing mass deaths of both fish and crayfish.

This inspired further research into crayfish genetics, recovery potential and preferred habitat. It guided a 2019 strategy outlining how the species could be successfully reintroduced. A trial five-year reintroduction program in the New South Wales range of the species helped refine the strategy.

Then another Murray blackwater event in 2022–23, in NSW and Victoria, forced crayfish out of the water and up the riverbanks.

Vision of dying crayfish leaving the water, only to be consumed by predators or poached by people, prompted the community to respond. Guided by fisheries agencies and a fishing conservation charity, they rescued crays and held them safely in aquaculture facilities until they could be released back into the wild.

Many of these crayfish were later returned to the river where they came from. But a small number were held for release into SA as part of our new reintroduction program.

In a truly collaborative effort, a small environmental not-for-profit organisation, Nature Glenelg Trust, worked in partnership with a natural resource management agency, First Nations community, fisheries agencies from three states and a private aquaculture facility to turn the idea into reality.

A group of 13 people standing on the banks of the Murray River in South Australia, the team responsible for the Murray crayfish reintroduction program.
The team responsible for releasing Murray crayfish back into South Australia.
Nick Whiterod

Positive signs from crayfish releases

Murray crayfish were first released back into South Australia in winter 2023. It was a big moment for people who have long championed the species’ return.

A further 200 crayfish were released during winter 2024.

During each release, some of the crayfish were tagged with trackers. This has provided world-first movement and activity information. It shows all tagged crayfish being regularly detected, indicating they are flourishing.

Field surveys each season at the reintroduction site have also found the species alive and well, representing the first Murray crayfish found in the state for more than 40 years.

A man lowers a tagged Murray crayfish into the river off the side of a boat.
Releasing a tagged Murray crayfish.
Nick Whiterod

Returning a totemic and iconic species

The reintroduction of Murray crayfish into a closely guarded location in South Australia’s Riverland is both culturally and ecologically significant.

It signals the return of a important totem to the Erawirung people of the region, and provides a way to reconnect with the species.

Reestablishing a population of the species in South Australia, where hypoxic blackwater events have not been as severe, also provides insurance against extinction.

The species is considered a keystone species, meaning it plays a disproportionately large role in the ecosystem. So returning it to the river may have even greater ecological benefits.

A woman with long brown hair wearing a green beanie holds one of the Murray crayfish prior to release.
Coauthor Sylvia Zukowski is managing the reintroduction program.
Nick Whiterod.

The first of many steps

Reintroduction programs require ongoing commitment if they are to be successful. Extra crayfish will need to be added to the reintroduced population over the coming years.

The reintroduced population will continue to be monitored to ensure numbers are increasing and the range expanding. It will remain protected from fishing by local fisheries authorities.

If successful, further reintroductions may be undertaken into other parts of South Australia.


This initiative is a partnership between Nature Glenelg Trust and the Murraylands and Riverland Landscape Board through funding from the landscape levies, with support from NSW Fisheries, Victorian Fisheries Authority, not-for-profit organisation OzFish Unlimited, North West Aquaculture, the River Murray & Mallee Aboriginal Corporation (RMMAC), CSIRO and the Department of Primary Industries and Regions SA (PIRSA).

The Conversation

Nick Whiterod works for the Goyder Institute for Water Research, Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth (CLLMM) Research Centre, which is funded by the national government to deliver research in the region. He is a member of the New South Wales Fisheries Scientific Committee.

Sylvia Zukowski works for not-for-profit organisation Nature Glenelg Trust, which receives funding from state and national government for conservation projects.

ref. The world’s second largest freshwater crayfish was once plentiful in Australia’s longest river – we’re bringing it back – https://theconversation.com/the-worlds-second-largest-freshwater-crayfish-was-once-plentiful-in-australias-longest-river-were-bringing-it-back-236520

Few Australians know the second verse of our national anthem – or how out of date it is

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wendy Hargreaves, Senior Learning Advisor, University of Southern Queensland

There are two verses to Advance Australia Fair, but do you know the second? Probably not.

It’s in our citizenship booklet, Our Common Bond, suggesting Aussies know it and new citizens could be questioned on it in their citizenship test.

Yet official protocol makes singing it optional. And who’ll choose to sing both verses when thousands of sporting fans just want the game to start?

There are living generations who never properly learnt Advance Australia Fair. Before 1984, most school students sang God Save the Queen. Schools today teach verse one, but whether we learn verse two is haphazard.

If school students sing along to a pre-recorded accompaniment with two verses, we’ll learn verse two. If we sing along with a squeaking school beginner band, one verse is probably all we’ll endure.

I suspect if we knew the second verse our common bond would be arguing about it. Australians acted passionately when debating one word in verse one, yet verse two barely raises an eyebrow. It’s the controversy we need to have (after we’ve googled the lyrics).

The birth of our second verse

The problem with verse two comes from its origins. It wasn’t in Peter Dodds McCormick’s original 1878 composition. His second verse championed gallant Cook sailing with British courage to raise old England’s flag, proving “Britannia rules the waves”. His third and fourth verses weren’t any more appropriate.

So, before Advance Australia Fair became our anthem in 1984, the National Australia Day Council made shrewd edits.

Instead of using verse two from McCormick’s original version, they turned to another version of Advance Australia Fair written for federation in 1901.

Oil painting of men in a large exhibition hall.
Opening of the first parliament of Australia after federation.
Wikimedia Commons

The federation version introduced a new commemorative verse, the only other verse the council kept:

Beneath our radiant Southern Cross we’ll toil with hearts and hands

To make our youthful Commonwealth renowned of all the lands

For loyal sons beyond the seas we’ve boundless plains to share

With courage let us all combine to Advance Australia Fair.

Next, the council fixed the gendered language in the federation verse. “Loyal sons” became “those who’ve come”. They deleted “youthful” with an uncanny premonition that age would become sensitive.

(For verse one, Australians resolved the debate ingeniously in 2021 by replacing “young and free” with “one and free”.)

But that’s all the council changed in verse two. They endorsed the rest.

What’s wrong with verse two?

The federation verse, understandably, celebrated the politics of 1901.

The lyrics begin mildly but repetitively, “Beneath our radiant Southern Cross we’ll toil with hearts and hands”. I’m not sure why we’re toiling in both verses. Perhaps Aussies have an exceptional work ethic.

In the next line, the word “commonwealth” was included to mark federation. The forming of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901 marked a transition from six British colonies (New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, Western Australia and Queensland) into one nation.

On one hand, it celebrates unity and cooperation between colonies. But by singing the intended meaning of the verse, that the nation began when the colonies united, we disrespect the knowledge Australia already was many nations of First Peoples.

Illustration: White Australia - the great national policy song
The federation verse says Australia has ‘boundless plains to share’ – but many were excluded from this vision of Australia.
Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

The second questionable lyric in verse two is “for those who’ve come across the seas, we’ve boundless plains to share”.

In 1901, Australia’s idea of sharing land was specific. We recruited enthusiastically for more British immigration, yet rejected migrants who weren’t white.

The Immigration Restriction Act 1901, one of our parliament’s first laws, allowed immigration officers to set near impossible dictation tests in any European language. In effect, this meant anyone could be excluded from immigrating by what would be known as the White Australia Policy.

Australia’s 21st century approach to sharing with foreigners also draws media attention. The breach of human rights at detention centres and the limiting of international student visas to stem migration suggest we have “bounds” after all.

The way forward

If the federation verse is theoretically testable for new citizens, then we should check if the values of 1901 and 2025 still match. Without checking, Australia is stagnating, not advancing.

The way forward is in the last line of verse two: “With courage let us all combine to Advance Australia Fair”.

In 1901, that was a plea for spirit and cooperation between colonies when forming a national parliament.

Yet, there’s a timeless truth in those words. By debating our anthem courageously, we can be united by challenge, enriched by diversity and ingenious at rewriting lyrics.

The Conversation

Wendy Hargreaves does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Few Australians know the second verse of our national anthem – or how out of date it is – https://theconversation.com/few-australians-know-the-second-verse-of-our-national-anthem-or-how-out-of-date-it-is-246678

We live in times of multiple entwined crises – but our policy responses aren’t keeping up

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Bridgewater, Adjunct Professor in Conservation, University of Canberra

Getty Images/Servais Mont

Existing policies to tackle environmental challenges fail to take into account that biodiversity loss, climate change and pollution are intertwined crises and produce compounding and intensifying impacts.

Policy measures taken in isolation are likely to result in unintended consequences.

These are key findings of two major assessment reports by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) released late last year.

One report lays out a framework for transformative change. The other, known as the Nexus assessment, highlights links between biodiversity loss, water quality, food security, health risks and climate change.

Both assessments focus on feedbacks and cascading issues which collectively lead to a polycrisis. The Nexus assessment encapsulates this:

Biodiversity loss and climate change are interdependent and produce compounding impacts that threaten human health and human wellbeing.

The reports argue that transformative change is urgent and necessary, but also feasible, to achieve a just and sustainable world. They encourage weaving Indigenous knowledge with science to promote a more comprehensive and connected approach and to limit unintended consequences.

Options for a sustainable future

The reports suggest mainstreaming biodiversity in the sectors contributing to its loss. This includes agriculture, fisheries, forestry, urban development, infrastructure, mining and energy (especially fossil fuels). Mainstreaming means all ministries in government and private industry should consider biodiversity in their work.

Reducing competition for land can achieve positive outcomes across biodiversity, food, water, health and climate. These include sustainable healthy diets, reduced food waste, ecological intensification of agriculture and ecosystem restoration.

The IPBES plenary meeting
The IPBES approved two reports which highlight the urgency of collaborative approaches to environmental challenges.
Dirk S. Schmeller, CC BY-SA

Both assessments offer several effective options for policy to drive the transformative change needed for a sustainable future. These include:

  • implementing nature-based solutions in urban areas to reconnect people with nature

  • employing spatial planning to configure the use of land and sea resources to balance trade-offs

  • measuring and reporting on the stocks and flows of natural assets to manage and enhance ecosystem services

  • restoring carbon-rich ecosystems such as forests, soils and mangroves

  • and supporting indigenous food systems.

The reports mention more than 70 options, highlighting the urgency of a globally coordinated and integrated effort.

Despite the clear value of the reports, the combined impacts of water, energy, health, agriculture and biodiversity already featured in the 2002 world summit on sustainable development. We must stop reinvention and move to implementing solutions to well-known problems.

Consensus process needs to change

The IPBES plenary bucked a trend of several unsuccessful global summits last year.

The Convention on Biological Diversity (COP16) could not finish and will have to resume in February. The annual climate summit (COP19) left many delegates disappointed over lack of funding. A meeting on combating desertification (COP16) ended with major items unfinished.

The IPBES not only released its reports, it also agreed to carry out a second global assessment of biodiversity and ecosystem services, starting this year.

But even though consensus was eventually reached, the long and tedious negotiations between governments were marred by national interests and were painful to watch.

Both assessments build on the work of hundreds of scientists, synthesising the latest science. Yet the politics on display during negotiations showed the worst of the human endeavour.

Tropical ref scene with a pink fan coral and fish in the background
Coral reefs are affected by climate change, which in turn leads to loss of biodiversity.
Getty Images

Why was this? The plenary consists of bureaucrats and diplomats from the 147 member governments, observers from other governments, Indigenous peoples and academia. It is not well suited to evaluate a scientific report. By placing their interpretation on the science in the reports they diluted the messages.

While the report authors attempted to accommodate the changes requested, differing requests often cancelled each other out. This created circular arguments, often taking the conclusions away from the science.

Even more than in previous years, this left authors saddened and highly frustrated with the process. A leading IPBES member opined that “very soon no scientist will want to take part in this process, willingly sacrificing three years of their life”.

This negotiation process must change in the future to put science back in the centre of IPBES assessments. Likewise, science must understand the need to offer a better and wider range of options to develop effective policy.

The plenary agreed to a review to examine ways and means of improving the IPBES process, building on the first review in 2019. If the upcoming review is serious, rethinking of the plenary process for the final negotiations and approval must be centre stage.

Another development that will help is better understanding between the IPBES and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on their respective roles. The scientific alarm bells are ringing loudly in assessments by both intergovernmental organisations. Science has done its job. Will policymakers and decision takers do theirs?

The Conversation

Peter Bridgewater was Review Editor for Chapter 1 and the Summary for Policy Makers of the Transformative Change Assessment

Dirk S. Schmeller and Suraj Upadhaya do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. We live in times of multiple entwined crises – but our policy responses aren’t keeping up – https://theconversation.com/we-live-in-times-of-multiple-entwined-crises-but-our-policy-responses-arent-keeping-up-247180

Albanese to promise $10,000 for apprentices in housing construction

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

The Albanese government if re-elected will provide a $10,000 incentive payment to apprentices to work in housing construction.

The promise will be announced by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese when he addresses the National Press Club on Friday.

The money would be paid in amounts of $2000 at the six, 12, 24 and 36 month stages of the apprenticeship with the final payment at the end of it.

The initiative’s cost of $626.9 million over four years is already accounted for in the December budget update.

Albanese’s speech, a section of which was released ahead of delivery, will have a strong economic focus.

The government has a target of 1.2 million new homes being constructed over five years. At the moment not enough homes are being built to reach the target.

Albanese will say that young trainee tradies are under significant financial pressure. A first-year carpentry apprentice earns about two-thirds of the minimum wage, and sometimes less.

“As a number of apprentices have said, they could earn a lot more stacking shelves in their local supermarket,” the PM says in his speech.

“Too many leave training, because they can’t afford to stay.”

The government wants to encourage more people “to get on the tools – and stay in construction,” he says.

The allowance paid to apprentices living away from home would be increased, for the first time since 2003. It is currently $77.17 a week.

“And, in occupations essential for residential construction, jobs like bricklayers, electricians, plumbers, carpenters and joiners, we will be providing eligible apprentices up to $10,000 through our new Key Apprentice Program.” The program would start on July 1.

This means that apprentices in residential construction would get the same training incentives already going to those in the clean energy sector.

This is the latest in a string of spending promises made by Albanese so far this year, which have included $7.2 billion to upgrade the Bruce Highway.

Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Albanese to promise $10,000 for apprentices in housing construction – https://theconversation.com/albanese-to-promise-10-000-for-apprentices-in-housing-construction-248142

Northern Mariana Islands advocates hit back at Trump diversity directives

By Mark Rabago, RNZ Pacific Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas correspondent

Two LGBTQIA+ advocates in the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) are up in arms over US President Donald Trump’s executive order rolling back protections for transgender people and terminating diversity, equity and inclusion programs within the federal government.

Pride Marianas founder Roberto Santos said Trump’s initiatives against the diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policy were no surprise.

“While we know policies and practices promoting these values have proven to be positive, we know how futile it is to convince Trump or his supporters that diversity, equity and inclusion are human rights.”

President Donald Trump . . . “We will forge a society that is colourblind and merit based. Image: Getty Images/The Conversation

Transgender rights have become a contentious political topic in recent years. During November’s election season, many Republicans campaigned on reversing transgender laws with a particular focus on transgender women participating in sports.

In his inauguration speech, Trump said: “This week, I will also end the government policy of trying to socially engineer race and gender into every aspect of public and private life.

“We will forge a society that is colourblind and merit based. As of today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders — male and female.”

Last month, the US Supreme Court tackled a major transgender rights case, and its conservative justices asked tough questions of lawyers challenging the legality of a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors.

Challenging argument
Santos presented an argument to Trump’s position on two genders and his declaration they could not be changed.

“To speak specifically to his statement about there being two and only two genders, I believe he’s referring to what we call biological or anatomical sex, and the construct of male and female as gender is a social construction,” Santos said.

“So, the inaccurate terminology he’s using is a testament to how ill-informed he is on the matter.”

Marianas Business Network president and founder PK Phommachanh-Daigo, meanwhile, discussed his journey as a Southeast Asian refugee from Laos in response to the diversity question under the second Trump administration.

“My family and I were sponsored by an Irish family in a small, conservative town in northeastern Connecticut. Growing up as the youngest of six children, with my eldest sibling 15 years older, we were culturally accustomed to a straightforward view of gender — male, female, or ladyboy, a concept common in Southeast Asia.

“It’s clear that the current debate over gender and DEI programmes is more politically charged in the US, especially among Republican and liberal factions.”

On Trump’s announcement to recognise only two genders and eliminate DEI programmes, Phommachanh-Daigo said it was not surprising “given the ongoing cultural war between the MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement and the so-called ‘woke’ culture”.

“The elimination of DEI programmes could potentially lead to a regression into systematic exclusion and discrimination, perpetuating cycles of inequity and racism.”

Cultural richness
He said this was in sharp contrast to the CNMI community, which was deeply rooted in cultural richness and familial bonds.

“We are generally accepting of people regardless of their gender or sexual orientation,” he said.

“Societal issues often stem from external influences rather than within our tight-knit local community. While the immediate impact on our government workforce may be minimal due to strong familial ties and the predominance of local employees, the long-term implications of eliminating DEI initiatives could erode the inclusive environment we strive to maintain.”

The message to the LGBTQIA+ community in the CNMI message is for them to just focus on personal growth, family, and positive contributions to society, regardless of the policies of the new Trump administration.

“Be a role model for others, and continue to foster a community that values acceptance, understanding, and mutual respect.”

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Murdoch’s UK newspapers have apologised to Prince Harry. Where does it leave the legally embattled media empire?

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Ricketson, Professor of Communication, Deakin University

This week Prince Harry achieved something few before him have: an admission of guilt and unlawful behaviour from the Murdoch media organisation. But he also fell short of his long-stated goal of holding the Murdochs to account in a public trial.

The Duke of Sussex, along with Tom Watson, the Labour MP who had led the charge against the Murdochs’ News Group Newspapers (NGN) in the United Kingdom during the 2011–12 phone hacking scandal, are the last to settle their claims against News over their privacy being invaded by phone hacking or through the use of private investigators.

They join a list of around 1,300 people, including celebrities such as Hugh Grant and Sienna Miller, who have already settled their claims against The Sun newspaper at an estimated cost to Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch’s company of more than £1 billion (almost A$2 billion).

This one is significant because unlike previous settlements, it came with an admission of wrongdoing and an apology, as well as the perfunctory wheelbarrow full of cash.

Until now, The Sun has simply refused to say sorry or admit liability. But that stance has become increasingly absurd.

As Grant posted on X last year when he settled his claim:

News Group are claiming they are entirely innocent of the things I had accused The Sun of doing. As is common with entirely innocent people, they are offering me an enormous sum of money to keep this matter out of court.

Prince Harry wrung from News considerably more. In a statement released after the case was settled on Wednesday morning in London, NGN said:

NGN offers a full and unequivocal apology to the Duke of Sussex for the serious intrusion by The Sun between 1996 and 2011 into his private life, including incidents of unlawful activities carried out by private investigators working for The Sun.

It went on:

NGN also offers a full and unequivocal apology to the Duke of Sussex for the phone hacking, surveillance and misuse of private information by journalists and private investigators instructed by them at the News of the World. NGN further apologises to the Duke for the impact on him of the extensive coverage and serious intrusion into his private life as well as the private life of Diana, Princess of Wales, his late mother, in particular during his younger years. We acknowledge and apologise for the distress caused to the Duke, and the damage inflicted on relationships, friendships and family, and have agreed to pay him substantial damages. It is also acknowledged, without any admission of illegality, that NGN’s response to the 2006 arrests and subsequent actions were regrettable.

Let’s break down what this is actually saying, and what it isn’t.

Carefully crafted wording

First, it is undoubtedly a significant admission that in pursuit of stories, The Sun engaged in unlawful activity. That is a big step up (or down, depending on your point of view) from previous settlement statements.

Note, though, it carefully pins the unlawful activity on private investigators working for The Sun rather than on journalists and, more importantly, editors. The word “incidents” is doing a lot of work here: “widespread” and “industrial-strength” come to mind as more appropriate.

Harry’s lawyer, David Sherborne, said immediately after the settlement was reached that “NGN unlawfully engaged more than 100 private investigators over at least 16 years on more than 35,000 occasions”.

He continued: “this happened as much at The Sun as it did at the News of the World with the knowledge of all the Editors and executives, going to the very top of the company.”

NGN’s statement, then, continues to assert phone hacking did not happen at The Sun but in a roundabout way, somehow, the newspaper benefited from it. Sort of.

Dancing to avoid perjury

The company has been engaged in this kind of casuistry ever since 2006 when it said the journalist and private investigator who were found guilty of phone hacking (Clive Goodman and Glen Mulcaire, respectively) were just two bad apples in an otherwise orchard-kissed media basket.

The hundreds of people who have received payments because their phones were hacked know this only too well, but there is an important reason NGN feels it still has to maintain this charade. To do otherwise would be an admission that it has perjured itself in courts and before inquiries.

The Murdochs’ company can hardly deny that journalists at the newspaper it was forced to close over phone hacking – The News of the World – were engaged in the practice. Several of them were jailed over it, most notably former editor Andy Coulson.

As one of Coulson’s former reporters, Dan Evans, testified at his editor’s trial in 2014, “even the office cat knew” phone hacking was happening at the newspaper.

The newspaper was closed, in large part, to try and persuade the public that the problem of unethical reporters was confined to that newspaper alone.

They weren’t expected to notice that months later, News set up a Sunday edition of The Sun that continues to be published.

The legal war continues

For Prince Harry, this has been a deeply personal campaign, especially as News has admitted seriously intruding into his private life since he was 12, and into his mother’s too, for many years.

NGN also acknowledged, without any admission of illegality, that its response to the 2006 arrests and its subsequent actions were “regrettable”. This is PR-speak for when you can’t bring yourself to actually apologise.

Harry’s lawyer went on the attack over these evasions and euphemisms:

there was an extensive conspiracy to cover up what really had been going on and who knew about it. Senior executives deliberately obstructed justice by deleting over 30 million emails, destroying back-up tapes, and making false denials – all in the face of an ongoing police investigation. They then repeatedly lied under oath to cover their tracks – both in Court and at the Leveson Public Inquiry.

Beneath the duelling statements, though, is the sense that this settlement, important though it is, may not be the end of the saga.

It seems clear those backing and advising Prince Harry see the settlement as an important step in pursuing criminal charges against NGN executives, as well as winning a personal apology from Rupert Murdoch himself.

Will that actually happen? We do know that in Murdoch’s long history in the media, apologies are vanishingly rare.

We also know that the second part of the Leveson inquiry was shelved by the former Conservative government. The recently elected Labour government has been under pressure from Hacked Off, the public interest group that has been advocating for victims of media intrusion and for reform of media laws ever since the phone hacking came to light in 2011.

Will Britain’s police and government build on NGN’s partial admissions and apologies? Will they investigate News executives, therefore fulfilling what was meant to occur in the second stage of the Leveson inquiry, whose terms of reference singled out News’s activities as a company?

Or will they take the cautious view that this rare settlement means justice has now been served and hope, like Murdoch and many of his senior executives, this long-running issue will now just quietly go away?

It is too early to tell. What we do know is that in recent years, the Murdochs’ once brilliant batting average has dropped like a stone. First, there was the historically high payout in the Dominion lawsuit, then the failed attempt to revoke an irrevocable trust that is tearing apart the family, and now the settlement with Prince Harry.

The Conversation

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Murdoch’s UK newspapers have apologised to Prince Harry. Where does it leave the legally embattled media empire? – https://theconversation.com/murdochs-uk-newspapers-have-apologised-to-prince-harry-where-does-it-leave-the-legally-embattled-media-empire-248110

Are public schools really ‘free’? Families can pay hundreds of dollars in voluntary fees

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Rowe, Associate Professor in Education, Deakin University

As Australian families prepare for term 1, many will receive letters from their public schools asking them to pay fees.

While public schools are supposed to be “free”, parents are regularly asked to pay “voluntary” annual contributions. The price tag can be significant. For example, in 2023, Victorian public schools received on average A$570 per student in fees, charges and parent contributions. These voluntary fees go towards a range of items, depending on the school – and could include stationary, excursions or other resources.

This week, the Greens announced a A$10 billion election policy to address public school costs.

Are fees really voluntary at public schools, and why are schools asking parents for funds?

What’s the Greens’ policy?

The Greens’ plan has two components. First, it would give public schools extra funding to cover school expenses, so parents would no longer be asked for voluntary contributions.

Second, the party is pledging to pay families $800 per year for every child attending a public school to cover back-to-school costs, including “uniforms, technology and school supplies”.

The Greens say this will make public schools “truly free”, adding, “public schools shouldn’t need to rely on the generosity of parents”.

The policy, which has been costed by the Parliamentary Budget Office, includes $2.4 billion to end school fees and $7.6 billion for the back-to-school payment.

Are fees really voluntary?

Fees at public schools are supposed to be voluntary. For example, the New South Wales Education Department notes:

These contributions are voluntary. The payment of voluntary school contributions is a matter for decision by parents and carers. Schools must not deny any student the opportunity to meet syllabus requirements because of non-payment of voluntary school contributions.

But parents often receive an official letter from the school at the start of the year (on school stationary, looking like an itemised bill).

Public pressure can also be a factor. In 2019, children at Bondi Public School in Sydney received free popcorn if their parents had paid their fees.

How much are public school fees?

In a 2019 study, a colleague and I examined voluntary school fees at 150 metropolitan public schools in Melbourne between 2013 and 2016. We also studied voluntary school fees at 386 public schools in NSW over five years (2013–17). In a 2022 study, we compared these to public selective-entry schools in NSW.

While we found fees were relatively stable over our study period, there were significant differences depending on the socioeconomic status of the school (measured by asking parents their profession and level of education).

In NSW, the average annual parent contribution in a high socioeconomic status school was $1,055 per student, compared with $419 in a low socioeconomic status school.

In metropolitan Melbourne, the average annual parent contribution in a high socioeconomic status school was $1,430 per student, compared with $408 in a low socioeconomic status school. The average annual parent contribution in a selective-entry public school was $2,057.

While the precise figures will have changed since we did our study – and are likely to be higher – the comparisons are concerning. They suggest significant gaps between public schools’ resources, depending on whether they are in an advantaged or disadvantaged area.

Schools are struggling for funds

Other research also suggests many public schools are struggling for funds. In my co-authored 2024 study, public school principals spoke of how they need to apply for competitive government grants to prop up school funds and provide basic services and building maintenance.

As part of this, principals talked about how their schools no longer had the capacity to help families in their communities. As one Victorian primary school principal told us:

We don’t have the flexibility [in our budget] that we once had. Once upon a time we probably had more flexibility to cover those families that are in dire need.

Another 2024 study found NSW students are being asked to pay for core physical education lessons at public schools, which have to outsource these lessons due to teacher shortages.




Read more:
‘Very frustrating’: for public school principals, applying for grants is now a big part of their job


The bigger picture

At a broader level, Australian schools are still not “fully funded”, according to the Gonski reforms more than a decade ago.

This is based on the “schooling resource standard”, whereby schools get funding based on the level of students’ needs. So far, only public schools in the ACT have had full funding allocations (for recurrent funding) under this model.

Funding for infrastructure or capital works is done separately, and is not tied to any needs-based measure.




Read more:
As more money is flagged for WA schools, what does ‘fully funded’ really mean?


School fees create barriers

Some parents may be happy to pay voluntary school fees in a public school – seeing it as a way to support their children’s education and the local community. Voluntary payments mean schools can afford more resources, which benefit their students.

However, the bigger issue is public schools should be accessible to everyone. Any school fees create potential barriers and access issues for families who cannot afford to pay. They also create gaps between different public schools, with some schools having far more money than others.

The solution is to ensure public schools are not only funded adequately, but robustly. At the moment, our funding system is not meeting the bare minimum agreed targets, and therefore it is unsurprising costs are being passed to parents.

The Conversation

Emma Rowe receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

ref. Are public schools really ‘free’? Families can pay hundreds of dollars in voluntary fees – https://theconversation.com/are-public-schools-really-free-families-can-pay-hundreds-of-dollars-in-voluntary-fees-248107

The US intends to leave the World Health Organization. What happens next?

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By C Raina MacIntyre, Professor of Global Biosecurity, NHMRC L3 Research Fellow, Head, Biosecurity Program, Kirby Institute, UNSW Sydney

T. Schneider/Shutterstock

Donald Trump’s plan to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO) has been met with dismay in the public health field.

Some have called one of the US president’s first executive orders “a grave error” and “absolutely bad news”.

What does the WHO do?

The WHO is a United Nations agency that aims to expand universal health coverage, coordinates responses to health emergencies such as pandemics, and has a broad focus on healthy lives. It does not have the power to enforce health policy, but influences policy worldwide, especially in low-income countries.

The WHO plays an essential coordinating role in surveillance, response and policy for infectious and non-infectious diseases. In fact, infectious diseases have the most pressing need for global coordination. Unlike non-communicable diseases, infections can spread rapidly from one country to another, just as COVID spread to cause a pandemic.

We have much to thank the WHO for, including the eradication of smallpox, a feat which could not have been achieved without global coordination and leadership. It has also played a leading role in control of polio and HIV.

Why does the US want to withdraw?

The reasons for withdrawing include:

mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic … and other global health crises, its failure to adopt urgently needed reforms, and its inability to demonstrate independence from the inappropriate political influence of WHO member states.

The executive order also cites the disproportionately higher payments the US makes to the WHO compared to China. In 2024-25, the US contributed 22% of the organisation’s mandatory funding from member states compared to about 15% for China.

President Trump initiated withdrawal from the WHO over similar concerns in 2020. But this was reversed by President Biden in 2021.

What happens next?

The withdrawal may take a year to come into effect, and may need approval by the US Congress.

How this will play out is unclear, but it seems likely the WHO will lose US funding.

The US withdrawal may also be the final nail in the coffin for the WHO Pandemic Agreement, which faltered in 2024 when member states could not agree on the final draft.

Trump’s executive order states all negotiations around the pandemic agreement will cease. However, the order hints that the US will look at working with international partners to tackle global health.

The US Centers for Disease and Control (CDC) already has such international partners and could feasibly do this. It already convenes a global network of training in outbreak response, which could provide a model. But to move in this direction needs finessing, as another objective of the new US government is to reduce or cease international aid.

The WHO also convenes a range of expert committees and networks of reference laboratories. One among many network of laboratories is for influenza, comprising more than 50 labs in 41 member states. This includes five “super labs”, one of which is at the CDC. It’s unclear what would happen to such networks, many of which have major US components.

With the threat of bird flu mutating to become a human pandemic these global networks are critical for surveillance of pandemic threats.

Flock of chicks
Global networks are needed to keep an eye on pandemic threats, including the spread of bird flu.
riza korhan oztunc/Shutterstock

WHO expert committees also drive global health policy on a range of issues. It is possible for the WHO to accredit labs in non-member countries, or for experts from non-member countries to be on WHO expert committees. But how this will unfold, especially for US government-funded labs or experts who are US government employees, is unclear.

Another potential impact of a US withdrawal is the opportunity for other powerful member nations to become more influential once the US leaves. This may lead to restrictions on US experts sitting on WHO committees or working with the organisation in other ways.

While the US withdrawal will see the WHO lose funding, member states contribute about 20% of the WHO budget. The organisation relies on donations from other organisations (including private companies and philanthropic organisations), which make up the remaining 80%. So the US withdrawal may increase the influence of these other organisations.

A chance for reform

The Trump administration is not alone in its criticism of how the WHO handled COVID and other infectious disease outbreaks.

For example, the WHO agreed with Chinese authorities in early January 2020 there was no evidence the “mystery pneumonia” in Wuhan was contagious, while in reality it was likely already spreading for months. This was a costly mistake.

There was criticism over WHO’s delay in declaring the pandemic, stating COVID was not airborne (despite evidence otherwise). There was also criticism about its investigation into the origins of COVID, including conflicts of interest in the investigating team.

The WHO was also criticised for its handling of the Ebola epidemic in West Africa a decade ago. Eventually, this led to a series of reforms, but arguably not enough.

Old sign in French warning about Ebola
Reforms followed the Ebola epidemic in West Africa a decade ago. But were they enough?
Sergey Uryadnikov/Shutterstock

More changes needed

US public health expert Ashish Jha argues for reform at WHO. Jha, who is the dean of the Brown University School of Public Health and former White House COVID response coordinator, argues the organisation has an unclear mission, too broad a remit, poor governance and often prioritises political sensitivities of member states.

He proposes the WHO should narrow its focus to fewer areas, with outbreak response key. This would allow reduced funding to be used more efficiently.

Rather than the US withdrawing from the WHO, he argues the US would be better to remain a member and leverage such reform.

Without reform, there is a possibility other countries may follow the US, especially if governments are pressured by their electorates to increase spending on domestic needs.

The WHO has asked the US to reconsider withdrawing. But the organisation may need to look at further reforms for any possibility of future negotiations. This is the best path toward a solution.

The Conversation

C Raina MacIntyre receives funding from NHMRC (L3 Investigator Grant and NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence), the US Department of Defence (for a pandemic war game Able Resolve 2024 and 2025) and Sanofi (investigator driven research on influenza and pertussis). She is on the WHO SAGE Mpox and smallpox advisory group, and was on the WHO Technical Advisory Group on COVID-19 Vaccine Composition (2021-2024).

ref. The US intends to leave the World Health Organization. What happens next? – https://theconversation.com/the-us-intends-to-leave-the-world-health-organization-what-happens-next-247997

Standing for decency: The sermon the President didn’t want to hear

COMMENTARY: By Nick Rockel

People get ready
There’s a train a-coming
You don’t need no baggage
You just get on board
All you need is faith
To hear the diesels humming
Don’t need no ticket
You just thank the Lord

Songwriter: Curtis Mayfield

You might have seen Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde’s speech at the National Prayer Service in the United States following Trump’s elevation to the highest worldly position, or perhaps read about it in the news.

It’s well worth watching this short clip of her sermon if you haven’t, as the rest of this newsletter is about that and the reaction to it:


‘May I ask you to have mercy Mr President.’       Video: C-Span

I found the sermon courageous, heartfelt, and, above all, decent. It felt like there was finally an adult in the room again. Predictably, Trump and his vile little Vice-President responded like naughty little boys being reprimanded, reacting with anger at being told off in front of all their little mates.

That response will not have surprised the Bishop. As she prepared to deliver the end of her sermon, you could see her pause to collect her thoughts. She knew she would be criticised for what she was about to say, yet she had the courage to speak it regardless.

What followed was heartfelt and compelling, as the Bishop talked of the fears of LGBT people and immigrants.

Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde’s speaking at the National Prayer Service. Image: C-Span screenshot

She spoke of them as if they were human beings like the rest of us, saying they pay their taxes, are not criminals, and are good neighbours.

The president did not want to hear her message. His anger was building as his snivelling sidekick looked toward him to see how the big chief would respond.

The President didn’t want to hear her message. Image: C-Span screenshot

Vented on social media
So, how did the leader of the free world react? Did he take it on the chin, appreciating that he now needed to show leadership for all, or did he call the person asking him to show compassion — “nasty”?

That’s right, it was the second one. I’m afraid there’s no prize for that as you’re all excluded due to inside knowledge of that kind of behaviour from observing David Seymour. The ACT leader responds in pretty much the same way when someone more intelligent and human points out the flaws in his soul.

Donald then went on his own Truth social media platform, which he set up before he’d tamed the Tech Oligarchs, and vented, “The so-called bishop who spoke at the National Prayer Service on Tuesday morning was a radical left hard-line Trump hater”.

Which isn’t very polite, but when you think about it, his response should be seen as a badge of honour. Especially for someone of the Christian faith because all those who follow the teachings of Christ ought to be “radical left hard-line Trump haters”, or else they’ve rather missed the point. Don’t you think?

Certainly, pastor and activist John Pavlovitz thought so, saying, “Christians who voted for him, you should be ashamed of yourselves. Of course, if you were capable of shame, you’d never have voted for him to begin with.”

Pastor and activist John Pavlovitz responds.
“She brought her church into the world of politics in a very ungracious way. She was nasty in tone, and not compelling or smart,” continued the President, like a schoolyard bully.

I thought it was a bit rich for a man who has used the church and the bible in order to sell himself to false Christians who worship money, who has even claimed divine intervention from God, to then complain about the Bishop not staying in her lane.

Speaking out against bigotry
If religious leaders don’t speak out against bigotry, hatred, and threats to peaceful, decent human beings — then what’s the point?


I admired Budde’s bravery. Just quietly, the church hasn’t always had the best record of speaking out against those who’ve said the sort of things that Trump is saying.

If you’re unclear what I mean, I’m talking about Hitler, and it’s nice to see the church, or at least the Bishop, taking the other side this time around. Rather than offering compliance and collaboration, as they did then and as the political establishment in America is doing now.

Aside from all that, it feels like a weird, topsy-turvy world when the church is asking the government to be more compassionate towards the LGBT community.

El Douche hadn’t finished and said, “Apart from her inappropriate statements, the service was a very boring and uninspiring one. She is not very good at her job! She and her church owe the public an apology!”

It’s like he just says the opposite of what is happening, and people are so stupid or full of hate that they accept it, even though it’s obviously false.

So, the Bishop is derided as “nasty” when she is considerate and kind. She is called “Not Smart” when you only have to listen to her to know she is an intelligent, well-spoken person. She is called “Ungracious” when she is polite and respectful.

Willing wretches
As is the case with bullies, there are always wretches willing to support them and act similarly to win favour, even as many see them for what they are.

Mike Collins, a Republican House representative, tweeted, “The person giving this sermon should be added to the deportation list.”

Isn’t that disgusting? An elected politician saying that someone should be deported for daring to challenge the person at the top, even when it is so clearly needed.

Fox News host Sean Hannity said, “Instead of offering a benediction for our country, for our president, she goes on the far-left, woke tirade in front of Donald Trump and JD Vance, their families, their young children. She made the service about her very own deranged political beliefs with a disgraceful prayer full of fear-mongering and division.”

Perhaps most despicably, Robert Jeffress, the pastor of Dallas’s First Baptist Church, tweeted this sycophantic garbage:


Those cronies of Trump seem weak and dishonest to me compared to the words of Bishop Budde herself, who said the following after her sermon:

“I wanted to say there is room for mercy, there’s room for a broader compassion. We don’t need to portray with a broadcloth in the harshest of terms some of the most vulnerable people in our society, who are, in fact, our neighbours, our friends, our children, our friends, children, and so forth.”

Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde a courageous stand. Image: https://cathedral.org/about/leadership/the-rt-rev-mariann-edgar-budde/
Speaking up or silent?
Over the next four years, many Americans will have to choose between speaking up on issues they believe in or remaining silent and nodding in agreement.

The Republican party has made its pact with the Donald, and the Tech Bros have fallen over each other in their desire to kiss his ass; it will be a dark time for many regular people, no doubt, to stand up for what they believe in even as those with power and privilege fall in line behind the tyrant.

Decoding symbolism in Lord of the Flies. Image: https://wr1ter.com/decoding-symbolism-in-lord-of-the-flies
So, although I am not Christian, I am glad to see the Church stand up for those under attack, show courage in the face of the bully, and be the adult in the room when so many bow at the feet of the child with the conch shell.

In my view Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde is a hero, and she does herself great credit with this courageous, compassionate, Christian stand

First published by Nick’s Kōrero and republished with permission. For more of Nick Rockel’s articles or to subscribe to his blog, click here.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A new wave of filmmakers are exploring motherhood’s discontents. Nightbitch makes this monstrous

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Williamson, Senior Tutor in English, University of Canterbury

Disney+

“Motherhood,” the beleaguered stay-at-home mother of Nightbitch tells us in contemplative voice-over, “is probably the most violent experience a human can have aside from death itself”.

Increasingly depicted as a source of frustration, resentment and rage, the film sets out to show motherhood is also far more savage and feral than the anodyne images posted on social media by retrograde tradwives or mumfluencers would have us believe.

As Nightbitch puts it, it’s “fucking brutal”.

Adapted by Marielle Heller from Rachel Yoder’s 2021 novel of the same name, the film stars Amy Adams as Mother, an unnamed installation artist who places her career on hold to raise her young son.

Wrung out by the demands of motherhood and increasingly furious with the lack of support she receives from her incompetent and often absent Husband (Scoot McNairy), Mother starts to spiral out of control, morphing into a dog complete with tail, sharpened canines, extra nipples and a ravenous desire for raw meat.

This transformation places the film squarely within a long representational history of monstrous mothers.

Monstrous motherhood

Writing in 1993, feminist film scholar Barbara Creed famously declared

all human societies have a conception of the monstrous-feminine, of what it is about woman that is shocking, terrifying, horrific, abject.

Anxieties about women’s bodies and their sexuality permeate cultural products, ranging from Freudian jokes to the duplicitous femme fatale of film noir.

This is especially true for the reproductive female body, whose unsettling ability to transform and multiply simultaneously threatens and fascinates. The horror genre is rich with examples, which critic Erin Harrington has helpfully termed “gynaehorror”.

Nightbitch takes this fear literally, drawing on magic realism and horror tropes to show the visceral and psychological metamorphosis women undergo on becoming mothers (a phenomenon known as matrescence).

A woman in a park with two dogs.
Mother starts to spiral out of control, morphing into a dog complete with tail.
Disney+

In one scene, Mother gouges into a cyst on her spine, releasing oozing, seeping pus before pulling out a tail. In another, she gluttonously devours cafeteria mac and cheese with her bare hands.

This surrealist turn promises to take us into the terrain of full feminist body horror (an experience that audiences are clearly up for, if the success of last year’s The Substance is anything to go by). But Nightbitch loses the courage of its convictions. By her own admission, Heller has an aversion to violence and the decision to dampen the gore was a deliberate one.

Unfortunately, this is to the detriment of the film. While it is unclear in Yoder’s absurdist novel whether Mother’s transformation is real or merely metaphorical allegory, the adaptation to film demands this be taken literally – at least at a visual level.

Heller’s refusal to lean into the body horror results in a neutered narrative with more bark than bite.

Death of the self

Nightbitch is the latest in a string of contemporary films and television series about motherhood and its discontents. Other titles include Tully (2018), The Let Down (2017–19), Working Moms (2017–23), Big Little Lies (2017–19) and the Bad Moms films (2016–17).

These texts put mothers front and centre. Stylistically different, and not without their individual problems, they are unified in their efforts to portray the messy reality of motherhood.

Adams’ portrayal of the invisibility and grief she experiences as a new mother will resonate with many viewers. An opening montage of Mother frying hashbrowns, reading bedtime stories and playing trucks ad nauseam deftly establishes the boredom and inertia of early motherhood. Sleep-deprived and terrified she’ll never be “smart or happy or thin ever again”, Mother has become unrecognisable to her pre-baby self.

When Husband asks in the middle of a fight “What happened to the girl I married?”, she replies, “She died in childbirth”.

The idea that motherhood is akin to a loss of selfhood isn’t revelatory or new; nor is Nightbitch’s approach. The film’s over-reliance on Adams’ voice-over to deliver lengthy didactic monologues is heavy-handed.

The family being joyous together.
Nightbitch is quick to show us Mother is, in fact, a good mum.
Disney+

More unusual is Nightbitch’s suggestion that successful motherhood can also be depleting and a source of profound ambivalence.

Nightbitch is quick to show us Mother is, in fact, a good mum – playful, attentive and affectionate with her son. Warm, golden lighting infuses their scenes together creating an intimate private world shared by mother and child.

Mother, it would seem, is doing everything right.

Her guilty admission she is “not doing OK” comes in spite of this. Nightbitch teases us with the idea the problem lies not with Mother but with motherhood itself.

This is an important distinction maternal scholars have been championing since the publication of Adrienne Rich’s groundbreaking work Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution in 1976.

Once again, however, Nightbitch disappointingly fails to deliver.

Despite having laboured to show the corrosive impacts that rigid gender norms and societal expectations can have on mothers, Nightbitch offers an individualised solution to this systemic problem.

Mother runs with dogs
Heller’s refusal to lean into the body horror results in a neutered narrative with more bark than bite.
Disney+

Fed up with Husband’s ineptitude, Mother initiates a separation, bonds with her fellow mum-friends, takes up running and throws herself back into her art. Apparently, all she really needed to do was find her pack and carve out some “me time”. Although Yoder’s book likewise concludes with Mother channelling her rage into her art, the separation and subsequent reconciliation subplot with Husband is an addition to the film.

This curious pivot shuts down the film’s articulation of maternal ambivalence and perinatal depression, as well as its critique of the weaponized incompetence exhibited by straight men in their romantic and family relationships.

Nightbitch’s ending certainly feels weird and surreal – just not in the way audiences might hope.

Nightbitch is streaming on Disney+ in Australia and New Zealand from today.

The Conversation

Rachel Williamson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. A new wave of filmmakers are exploring motherhood’s discontents. Nightbitch makes this monstrous – https://theconversation.com/a-new-wave-of-filmmakers-are-exploring-motherhoods-discontents-nightbitch-makes-this-monstrous-246414

Yes, Trump can rename the Gulf of Mexico – just not for everyone. Here’s how it works

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Clive Schofield, Professor, Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security (ANCORS), University of Wollongong

Getty Images

Among the blizzard of executive orders issued by Donald Trump on his first day back in the Oval Office was one titled Restoring Names that Honor American Greatness. It unilaterally renamed “the area formerly known as the Gulf of Mexico” as the “Gulf of America”.

The order was justified by this maritime space having long been an “integral asset” to the United States, with its “bountiful geology” yielding around 14% of US crude oil production, “vibrant American fisheries”, and it being “a favourite destination of American tourism”.

The gulf was also characterised as “an indelible part of America” that would continue to play “a pivotal role in shaping America’s future and the global economy”.

But while it’s undoubtedly important to the US, this part of the Atlantic Ocean washes against other countries, too. So, can the president really rename it? Sure! At least as far as the US is concerned, anyway.

Naming rights

The relevant federal body is the Board on Geographic Names (BGN), established in 1890 with the mission to maintain uniform geographic name usage.

Specifically, Trump’s executive order instructs the secretary of the interior to take “all appropriate actions” to change the name to the Gulf of America, ensure all federal references reflect the renaming, and update the Geographic Names Information System.

The BGN has usually been reluctant to change generally accepted geographic names. However, the executive order clearly signals that the composition of the board may change in order to ensure the proposed renaming happens.

But whatever the US decides to call the gulf, it doesn’t mean other countries will pay any heed. Indeed, Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo promptly suggested the US might itself be renamed Mexican America.

She was referring to a 17th-century map showing that name for much of the area that now makes up the US, and asserted Mexico and the rest of the world would continue to use the name Gulf of Mexico.

Disputed histories

The International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) publishes a volume called Limits of Oceans and Seas, covering the names of seas and oceans around the world, including the “Gulf of Mexico”.

But the study is explicit that these limits “have no political significance whatsoever” and are “solely for the convenience” of hydrographic offices preparing information for mariners.

It has not been published since 1953 – precisely because of a dispute over the geographic name of the body of water between Japan and Korea. Japan prefers to call it the Sea of Japan (as most know it) but South Korea has long campaigned for it to be named the East Sea or East Sea/Sea of Japan.

A revised edition of the IHO volume was submitted to member states in 2002 but dealt with the issue by omitting coverage of the East Sea/Sea of Japan. It remains a working document only.

The issue is taken so seriously by South Korea that an ambassador-level position was created to deal with it, and a Society for the East Sea was established 30 years ago.

That this deadlock has prevented a new edition of an IHO publication for more than 70 years shows not only the difficulty of changing generally well-recognised geographic names, but also the importance countries place on these matters.

Dangerous ground

Place names – known as toponyms – are sensitive because they show that any country changing a name has the right to do so, which implies sovereignty and possession. Names therefore carry historical and emotional significance and are readily politicised.

This is particularly true where past conflicts with unresolved legacies and current geopolitical rivalries are in play. For example, the Sea of Japan/East Sea dispute goes back to Japan’s 1905 annexation of Korea and subsequent 40-year colonial rule.

Similarly, the disputed sovereignty of the Falkland Islands/Las Malvinas, over which Britain and Argentina went to war in 1982, remains a perennial source of diplomatic dispute.

But the South China Sea case is hard to beat. All or parts of this body of water are simultaneously referred to as the South Sea (Nan Hai) by China, the West Philippines Sea by the Philippines, the North Natuna Sea by Indonesia, and (another) East Sea (Biển Đông) by Vietnam.

To further complicate things in that same area, what in English are generally known as the Spratly Islands are known in Chinese as the Nánshā Qúndǎo, the Kepulauan Spratly in Malay, and in Vietnamese as the Trường Sa.

All the individual islands, rocks and cays in this highly disputed zone also carry names, individually or collectively, in multiple languages. Even the names of entirely and permanently submerged features have proved controversial. Early British Admiralty cartographers were arguably most accurate in naming the area simply “Dangerous Ground”.

Political gulfs

Globally, there have been moves to replace colonial references with original indigenous names, something very familiar to Australians and New Zealanders.

In the same executive order renaming the Gulf of Mexico, Trump also changed the name of the highest peak in North America (in Alaska) from Denali back to Mount McKinley (named after the 25th president, William McKinley, in 1917).

This simultaneously attacked the legacy of former president Barack Obama, who renamed the peak Denali in 2015, and spoke to Trump’s war on perceived “woke” politics.

That said, the change was tempered by the fact the national park area surrounding the mountain will retain the name Denali National Park and Preserve.

Ultimately, Trump can rebadge the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, but only from a strictly US perspective. It is unlikely to matter much to the rest of the world, save for those wishing to curry favour with the new administration.

Most of the world will likely continue to refer to the Gulf of Mexico. And the Gulf of America may yet be consigned to history in four years’ time.

Clive Schofield does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Yes, Trump can rename the Gulf of Mexico – just not for everyone. Here’s how it works – https://theconversation.com/yes-trump-can-rename-the-gulf-of-mexico-just-not-for-everyone-heres-how-it-works-248009

What is PNF stretching, and will it improve my flexibility?

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lewis Ingram, Lecturer in Physiotherapy, University of South Australia

Undrey/Shutterstock

Whether improving your flexibility was one of your new year’s resolutions, or you’ve been inspired watching certain tennis stars warming up at the Australian Open, maybe 2025 has you keen to focus on regular stretching.

However, a quick Google search might leave you overwhelmed by all the different stretching techniques. There’s static stretching and dynamic stretching, which can be regarded as the main types of stretching.

But there are also some other potentially lesser known types of stretching, such as PNF stretching. So if you’ve come across PNF stretching and it piques your interest, what do you need to know?

What is PNF stretching?

PNF stretching stands for proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation. It was developed in the 1940s in the United States by neurologist Herman Kabat and physical therapists Margaret Knott and Dorothy Voss.

PNF stretching was initially designed to help patients with neurological conditions that affect the movement of muscles, such as polio and multiple sclerosis.

By the 1970s, its popularity had seen PNF stretching expand beyond the clinic and into the sporting arena where it was used by athletes and fitness enthusiasts during their warm-up and to improve their flexibility.

Although the specifics have evolved over time, PNF essentially combines static stretching (where a muscle is held in a lengthened position for a short period of time) with isometric muscle contractions (where the muscle produces force without changing length).

PNF stretching is typically performed with the help of a partner.

There are 2 main types

The two most common types of PNF stretching are the “contract-relax” and “contract-relax-agonist-contract” methods.

The contract-relax method involves putting a muscle into a stretched position, followed immediately by an isometric contraction of the same muscle. When the person stops contracting, the muscle is then moved into a deeper stretch before the process is repeated.

For example, to improve your hamstring flexibility, you could lie down and get a partner to lift your leg up just to the point where you begin to feel a stretch in the back of your thigh.

Once this sensation eases, attempt to push your leg back towards the ground as your partner resists the movement. After this, your partner should now be able to lift your leg up slightly higher than before until you feel the same stretching sensation.

This technique was based on the premise that the contracted muscle would fall “electrically silent” following the isometric contraction and therefore not offer its usual level of resistance to further stretching (called “autogenic inhibition”). The contract-relax method attempts to exploit this brief window to create a deeper stretch than would otherwise be possible without the prior muscle contraction.

The contract-relax-agonist-contract method is similar. But after the isometric contraction of the stretched muscle, you perform an additional contraction of the muscle group opposing the muscle being stretched (referred to as the “agonist” muscle), before the muscle is moved into a static stretch once more.

Again, if you’re trying to improve hamstring flexibility, immediately after trying to push your leg towards the ground you would attempt to lift it back towards the ceiling (this bit without partner resistance). You would do this by contracting the muscles on the front of the thigh (the quadriceps, the agonist muscle in this case).

Likewise, after this, your partner should be able to lift your leg up slightly higher than before.

The contract-relax-agonist-contract method is said to take advantage of a phenomenon known as “reciprocal inhibition.” This is where contracting the muscle group opposite that of the muscle being stretched leads to a short period of reduced activation of the stretched muscle, allowing the muscle to stretch further than normal.

What does the evidence say?

Research has shown PNF stretching is associated with improved flexibility.

While it has been suggested that both PNF methods improve flexibility via changes in nervous system function, research suggests they may simply improve our ability to tolerate stretching.

It’s worth noting most of the research on PNF stretching and flexibility has focused on healthy populations. This makes it difficult to provide evidence-based recommendations for people with clinical conditions.

And it may not be the most effective method if you’re looking to improve your flexibility in the long term. A 2018 review found static stretching was better for improving flexibility compared to PNF stretching. But other research has found it could offer greater immediate benefits for flexibility than static stretching.

At present, similar to other types of stretching, research linking PNF stretching to injury prevention and improved athletic performance is relatively inconclusive.

PNF stretching may actually lead to small temporary deficits in performance of strength, power, and speed-based activities if performed immediately beforehand. So it’s probably best done after exercise or as a part of a standalone flexibility session.

Static stretching may be a more effective way to improve flexibility over the long-term.
GaudiLab/Shutterstock

How much should you do?

It appears that a single contract-relax or contract-relax-agonist-contract repetition per muscle, performed twice per week, is enough to improve flexibility.

The contraction itself doesn’t need to be hard and forceful – only about 20% of your maximal effort should suffice. The contraction should be held for at least three seconds, while the static stretching component should be maintained until the stretching sensation eases.

So PNF stretching is potentially a more time-efficient way to improve flexibility, compared to, for example, static stretching. In a recent study we found four minutes of static stretching per muscle during a single session is optimal for an immediate improvement in flexibility.

Is PNF stretching the right choice for me?

Providing you have a partner who can help you, PNF stretching could be a good option. It might also provide a faster way to become more flexible for those who are time poor.

However, if you’re about to perform any activities that require strength, power, or speed, it may be wise to limit PNF stretching to afterwards to avoid any potential deficits in performance.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. What is PNF stretching, and will it improve my flexibility? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-pnf-stretching-and-will-it-improve-my-flexibility-246407

‘Move fast and break things’: Trump’s $500 billion AI project has major risks

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Armin Chitizadeh, Lecturer, School of Computer Science, University of Sydney

Collagery/Shutterstock

In one of his first moves as the 47th President of the United States, Donald Trump announced a new US$500 billion project called Stargate to accelerate the development of artificial intelligence (AI) in the US.

The project is a partnership between three large tech companies – OpenAI, SoftBank and Oracle. Trump called it “the largest AI infrastructure project by far in history” and said it would help keep “the future of technology” in the US.

Tech billionaire Elon Musk, however, had a different take, claiming without evidence on his platform X that the project’s backers “don’t actually have the money”. X, which is not included in Stargate, is also working on developing AI and Musk is a rival to OpenAI CEO Sam Altman.

Alongside announcing Stargate, Trump also revoked an executive order signed by his predecessor Joe Biden that was aimed at addressing and controlling AI risks.

Seen together, these two moves embody a mentality common in tech development that can best be summed up by the phrase: “move fast and break things”.

What is Stargate?

The US is already the world’s frontrunner when it comes to AI development.

The Stargate project will significantly extend this lead over other nations.

It will see a network of data centres built across the US. These centres will house enormous computer servers necessary for running AI programs such as ChatGPT. These servers will run 24/7 and will require significant amounts of electricity and water to operate.

According to a statement by OpenAI, construction of new data centres as part of Stargate is already underway in the US state of Texas:

[W]e are evaluating potential sites across the country for more campuses as we finalise definitive agreements.

An imperfect – but promising – order

The increased investment into AI development by Trump is encouraging. It could help advance the many potential benefits of AI. For example, AI can improve cancer patients’ prognosis by rapidly analysing medical data and detecting early signs of disease.

But Trump’s simultaneous revocation of Biden’s executive order on the “safe, secure and trustworthy development and use of AI” is deeply concerning. It could mean that any potential benefits of Stargate are quickly trumped by its potential to exacerbate existing harms of AI technologies.

Yes, Biden’s order lacked important technical details. But it was a promising start towards developing safer and more responsible AI systems.

One major issue it was meant to address was tech companies collecting personal data for AI training without first obtaining consent.

AI systems collect data from all over the internet. Even if data are freely accessible on the internet for human use, it does not mean AI systems should use them for training. Also, once a photo or text is fed into an AI model, it cannot be removed. There have been numerous cases of artists suing AI art generators for unauthorised use of their work.

Another issue Biden’s order aimed to tackle was the risk of harm – especially to people from minority communities.

Most AI tools aim to increase accuracy for the majority. Without proper design, they can make extremely dangerous decisions for a few.

For example, in 2015, an image-recognition algorithm developed by Google automatically tagged pictures of black people as “gorillas”. This same issue was later found in AI systems of other companies such as Yahoo and Apple, and remains unresolved a decade later because these systems are so often inscrutable even to their creators.

This opacity makes it crucial to design AI systems correctly from the start. Problems can be deeply embedded in the AI system itself, worsening over time and becoming nearly impossible to fix.

As AI tools increasingly make important decisions, such as résumé screening, minorities are being even more disproportionately affected. For example, AI-powered face recognition software more commonly misidentifies black people and other people of colour, which has lead to false arrests and imprisonment.

Faster, more powerful AI systems

Trump’s twin AI announcements in the first days of his second term as US president show his main focus in terms of AI – and that of the biggest tech companies in the world – is on developing ever more faster, more powerful AI systems.

If we compare an AI system with a car, this is like developing the fastest car possible while ignoring crucial safety features like seat belts or airbags in order to keep it lighter and thus faster.

For both cars and AI, this approach could mean putting very dangerous machines into the hands of billions of people around the world.

Armin Chitizadeh does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. ‘Move fast and break things’: Trump’s $500 billion AI project has major risks – https://theconversation.com/move-fast-and-break-things-trumps-500-billion-ai-project-has-major-risks-248007

Why have Joe Biden’s preemptive pardons caused such a stir? A president’s pardoning power has few limits

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hart, Emeritus Faculty, US government and politics specialist, Australian National University

On his last day in office, outgoing United States President Joe Biden issued a number of preemptive pardons essentially to protect some leading public figures and members of his own family from possible retaliation by Donald Trump. It was a novel and innovative use of the presidential pardon power.

Among others, the preemptive pardons were for:

  • retired General Mark Milley (former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff),

  • Anthony Fauci (Biden’s former chief medical advisor)

  • members of the House committee that investigated the January 6 2021 insurrection of the US Capitol, including Trump critic Liz Cheney (a former House member from Wyoming)

  • five members of his family, including his siblings.

The pardons for Fauci, Milley and Biden’s family members specifically cover any “offences against the United States” that may have been committed from January 1 2014 through to the date of the pardon.

At various times in recent years, Trump has indicated his intention to go after those he believes had crossed or criticised him, either during his previous presidency or following the insurrection of the Capitol.

Presidential pardons are usually issued to provide relief to those who have been convicted of an offence and have served all or part of a prison sentence. There is usually also a justifiable reason for doing so.

The novelty of Biden’s use of the pardon power is that none of those covered by his preemptive pardons had committed or been charged with any offence. Nor had they been accused of wrongdoing, apart from comments made by Trump or his supporters. This has concerned some on both the left and right.

Rather, Milley, Fauci, Cheney and the others are protected from any potential future criminal charges that could be brought by the Trump administration.

Who can be pardoned?

The pardon power was written into the US Constitution when it was drafted in 1787. It gives the president the power

to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

The only constitutional limitations on the president’s pardon power are that it cannot include those who have violated a state law (it only covers federal offences) and it cannot absolve anyone who has been successfully impeached.

Beyond these two limitations, it is the only presidential power that is not subject to the usual array of checks and balances on which the Constitution is built.

As such, Congress cannot override a presidential pardon and the Supreme Court would have no grounds for declaring a presidential pardon unconstitutional.

This is because the Constitution doesn’t say anything about the grounds on which a president can grant a pardon. It also says nothing about the reasons why he can’t issue one.

In a case heard back in 1886, the Supreme Court declared the pardon power was unlimited and has generally held to that position ever since.

Is there precedent for Biden’s action?

Biden has now expanded and extended the scope of the pardon power by issuing preemptive pardons.

There is some precedent. In 1974, President Gerald Ford pardoned his predecessor, Richard Nixon, following Nixon’s resignation over the Watergate scandal. However, Nixon had not been charged or convicted of any criminal offence at the time. And, of course, he escaped likely impeachment by resigning.

Essentially, Ford pardoned Nixon for offences he may have committed or may be charged with in the future. Ford’s purpose, of course, was to attempt to end the damaging consequences of Watergate and restore some normality to government.

Biden is taking this power further, using the pardon to constrain and limit the actions of his successor, who has clearly indicated his intention to pursue legal action where there is no apparent justification for doing so.

Biden’s action is therefore intended to protect innocent individuals from prosecution, as well as the massive costs entailed in defending themselves in a court of law.

In defending his action, Biden said:

These are exceptional circumstances and I cannot in good conscience do nothing.

The pardons, however, will not stop Trump or a Republican-led Congress from initiating investigations of these individuals. But they go a long way to thwart Trump’s stated intentions of bringing criminal proceedings against those who have upset him merely by performing their public duties.

The real problem

Biden has been praised by some for his actions, while others have worried about the precedent it sets.

However, the real problem lies not with Biden but with the pardon power itself because of how broadly it’s written. It’s open to interpretation by any president.

It is also locked into a Constitution written 238 years ago by men who could not have foreseen the circumstances that led Biden to use the power in this way to constrain his successor. Their broad grant of the pardon power might warrant some examination now, but amending the Constitution is immensely difficult and requires extraordinary majorities in both houses of Congress and among the 50 US states.

And given today’s polarised politics, this certainly isn’t going to happen.

John Hart does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

ref. Why have Joe Biden’s preemptive pardons caused such a stir? A president’s pardoning power has few limits – https://theconversation.com/why-have-joe-bidens-preemptive-pardons-caused-such-a-stir-a-presidents-pardoning-power-has-few-limits-248108

- ADVERT -

MIL PODCASTS
Bookmark
| Follow | Subscribe Listen on Apple Podcasts

Foreign policy + Intel + Security

Subscribe | Follow | Bookmark
and join Buchanan & Manning LIVE Thursdays @ midday

MIL Public Webcast Service


- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -